Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bowman Tactical Communications System

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: When he expects the Bowman tactical communications system to be delivered to the armed services. [104533]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We inherited not only a serious delay in the replacement for the Clansman radio, but an unsatisfactory mechanism for producing its replacement, the Bowman system.
We will therefore deliver Bowman incrementally, using smart procurement principles. As a result, initial deliveries of the personal role radio element of Bowman should now be possible from the end of 2001. We expect the main Bowman system to enter service in late 2003 or early 2004, subject to good performance by industry.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The overall delay is a further slippage on top of what has happened in the past

and has added to a long list of slippages on such things as the beyond-visual-range anti-aircraft missile—BVRAAM—the heavy lift, and ASTOR—the airborne stand-off radar. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House with confidence that these slippages have nothing to do with pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Hoon: I can, because the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for much longer than I have, and he has watched the previous Government's performance. He mentioned slippage in relation to Bowman. I remind him that, on that project, the Government inherited slippage of 75 months—more than six years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman looks at defence matters very seriously, and I am sure that, if he had looked at the matter in the round, he would have recognised that the problems of slippage in relation to that programme did not result largely from financial concerns but, in particular, from the need to ensure that British forces had the best equipment available to them, bearing in mind the significant technological changes over the period.

Kosovo

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What is the additional cost to the Defence budget in 1999–2000 of British military operations in Kosovo; and if HM Treasury has agreed to increase the Defence vote to cover that cost. [104534]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As at the end of October, the Ministry of Defence had incurred net additional expenditure of £125 million on Kosovo operations during this financial year. That figure is expected to rise to just below £400 million by the end of 1999–2000. The Government have agreed that these costs will be covered by the reserve. The details are currently being discussed and will be included in the Department' s spring supplementary estimates.

Mr. Howarth: Given the catalogue of cuts that have been inflicted on our armed services by the present


Government, including the shortage of fuel for the Royal Navy, the lack of medical treatment for our service men and women, and the defective and unreliable weaponry with which our troops were sent into Kosovo, I think that the Secretary of State will agree that he owes it to the House to confirm to us today that the shortfall that has been incurred as a result of the Kosovan war will be made good by the Treasury in this financial year and to tell us that the stock of missiles and bombs that were expended during the Kosovan war will be replenished. If, however, he merely tells us that it is all the fault of the previous Conservative Government, what has he been doing about it for the past two and a half years?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully to my answer, he would have found that I had already given the assurance that he asked for in relation to his supplementary question. It is important to remind the House, when the hon. Gentleman talks about the catalogue of cuts, that we are talking about a reduction in the defence budget of around 3 per cent. in real terms over three years. That compares unfavourably with the record of the Conservative party, which cut defence spending by a third from the 1980s onwards—cuts for which the hon. Gentleman enthusiastically voted.

Ms Rachel Squire: May I very much welcome the assurances given by my right hon. Friend? They once again demonstrate that the present Government's and the previous Government's management of defence spending are like chalk and cheese. Will he once again agree that Conservative Members who were members of the Government who cut defence spending by nearly one third have no right to preach on defence spending? Will he further agree that this Labour Government, through their strategic defence review, demonstrated their clear commitment to equipping the armed forces to play a leading role in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts in the years to come?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, there is almost no limit to what could be spent under a defence budget heading, and it is the responsibility of any Government—including the previous Government—to maximise our defence capability within a reasonable share of public spending as a whole. Obviously, it was the aim of the strategic defence review to achieve that. The result is a balanced, better focused defence programme, which provides the defence capabilities required to meet this country's defence and security responsibilities now and into the future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me, but there was a hint of complacency in that and his previous answer. The Army is short of tanks, the Royal Air Force is short of aircraft and the Navy is short of fuel and reliable medical services. All those shortages have a debilitating effect on morale and on capability. The root cause is inadequate resources, especially the so-called 3 per cent. annual efficiency saving that the Treasury exacted as its price for supporting the strategic defence review. In the light of those circumstances, how can we be confident that the Government will have the finance available to place the

order for the necessary heavy-lift aircraft and the aircraft carriers that are central to the expeditionary strategy that underpins the strategic defence review?

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been rather carried away by some of the more lurid headlines that he has read recently in newspapers. He generally takes a very responsible attitude towards such matters, but, sadly, some of the headlines were stimulated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. None of the shortages that he claims is true. In particular, the matter that he raised over the weekend about the availability of aircraft was the result of snapshot statistics that were supplied to him together with a clear explanation that aircraft can be made ready at very short notice. Most aircraft can be made ready within hours and that is not a sign that we are short of aircraft. Indeed, the Royal Air Force carried out all of its operations over Kosovo and continues to carry out operations over Iraq without the slightest difficulty.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of reports and assessments that the police force that was envisaged for Kosovo has not been put in place. If that is so, will not many more armed forces be required for a longer period and will they not have to play a larger role? Has my right hon. Friend included that in the assessment that he has given to the House?

Mr. Hoon: Of course, that is strictly the responsibility of the United Nations and its administration in Kosovo. Certainly, the United Kingdom has made police officers available and will continue to do so subject to the international requirements.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of his earlier answer, can the Secretary of State confirm that we are severely short of Army manpower, severely short of RAF air crew at a time when the airlines are not recruiting and that we have cancelled—some of them for financial reasons—most of our major exercises this year?
On Kosovo, will the Secretary of State tell us what will happen to the £110 million that has been spent on providing winter accommodation for our armed forces? In late January, much of that accommodation is still not ready, so will that money be funded by the Treasury and what will be done about the contractors who have failed to deliver on time?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of different questions. First, let me disagree with the use of the word "severely". At any time in any armed forces there are vacancies. Recruitment for our armed forces has been extremely successful lately, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as a member of the Defence Committee. The specific problem that successive Governments have faced with the armed forces has been not recruitment, but retention. Urgent measures have been put in place to deal with that and the latest statistics suggest that things are improving, and improving quite quickly. There is no severe shortage along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
On accommodation in Kosovo, the hon. Gentleman, like me, will be disappointed that, as a result of, in particular, failures by the contractors and of some changes


in specifications, we have not been able to provide the winter accommodation as early as was originally planned. Great efforts are being made by the contractors and they have been put under a great deal of pressure by the Ministry of Defence to move as quickly as they can. The first accommodation will be made available before the end of this month, but other accommodation will be delayed beyond that which was originally envisaged as part of the contract. We shall look carefully at the contract to see what kind of compensation can be secured from the contractors for their late delivery.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the £400 million doing to protect the non-Albanians in Kosovo?

Mr. Hoon: A great deal of effort has been made to secure the basic objective of our forces being deployed in Kosovo, which is to protect minorities. We went in there for humanitarian reasons and were very successful in ensuring the end to the atrocities against the Albanian community. Equally, I recognise that it is incumbent on international forces to protect the Serbian minority. They are doing that each and every day, and, in particular, the British forces are doing that very successfully.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the Secretary of State recall the anecdote of the American admiral, who signalled the British fleet, "How's the world's second largest navy", to which our man replied, "Fine; how's the second best?" Does he accept that if the British fleet is stuck in port due to fuel shortages, it will never have the chance to prove that it is the best in the world? It is no good him telling us, just to save his face, that there are 25 ships at sea this afternoon. Will he guarantee that the Navy will have enough fuel to meet both its training and its operational requirements and that he will never again cut the Navy's fuel budget by 30 per cent. just to reinstate it by 25 per cent., as he did this year?

Mr. Hoon: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the Royal Navy. He suggests by implication that, somehow, significant deployments can be organised in a matter of days, but, given half a minute's thought, he must know that deployments such as those of the past week take months and, sometimes, years to organise. If he gave a little thought to his observations, he would realise that much of what he has just said is nonsense.
The Navy has not been stuck in port in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. A significant number of ships was tied up over Christmas, as happens every Christmas, reflecting the understandable concern—I hope—of those responsible for the Navy to ensure that people in the service can spend as much time as possible with their families during the holidays. That happened during this holiday period, and during every previous one. There is nothing new for him to criticise.

Armed Forces (Women)

Mrs. Eileen Gordon: How many women joined the armed forces in 1999. [104535]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Figures for the whole of 1999 are not yet available. In the 12 months up to 1 December 1999, 3,258 women were recruited into the armed forces from civilian life. That represents 13 per cent. of the total intake.

Mrs. Gordon: I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate the armed forces on that achievement. As in Parliament, we women play a valuable role and make a valuable contribution—and we need more of them. Has the increase been sustained across the three services? Are there posts still not open to women? If so, will he review those restrictions? I think particularly of ones that prevail at present in the Army.

Mr. Spellar: I was out on an exercise on HMS Cornwall this week, where men and women were working together as a team very effectively. [Interruption.] Contrary to the slurs cast on them by Conservative Members, they were in extremely good heart and, as one would expect, very professional. Morale was extremely good. Their picture of the armed forces is totally different from Conservative Members' politically motivated slurs.
In 1998–99, 3,431 women were recruited—the highest ever percentage. On positions in the forces, the Army is looking at the question of the front line and also the teeth arms, and is due to report in April 2001.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that women play an important role in the armed forces and that, despite what some people think, they play a valuable role too on board ship in close proximity to men? Does he believe that there is a lesson to be learned for those who took a particular view when the Secretary of State made his recent statement?

Mr. Spellar: I am pleased to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman says about the very good role played by women in the armed forces. I was also pleased by the balanced response from the services to the Secretary of State's statement, in which he announced our response to the legal judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

Short-term Strategic Airlift Programme

Mr. Tim Collins: If he will make an announcement on the preferred bidder for the short-term strategic airlift programme. [104538]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We are assessing proposals from three companies: Boeing, Air Foyle Ltd. and HeavyLift Cargo Airlines Ltd. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but will he guarantee that the RAF will get the aircraft that it wants, not the aircraft that Downing street, for political reasons, decides is convenient? Will he guarantee that the timing will be determined according to strategic necessity, not Treasury pressure? If he is tempted to repeat his earlier allegations about the record of the previous Government,


he should recall that, during Labour's previous periods in office, his lot were all unilateralists who wanted to cut our defence budget in half.

Mr. Hoon: Obviously, when considering such important investments, it is necessary to look at all relevant factors, including performance, cost and industrial issues.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matter has dragged on? He might recollect that, of the three delegations to Ministers that I have led, the first was to see Mr. Jonathan Aitken. The 4,000 airbus workers in my constituency hope that the A400M option is his Ministry's choice. If the C-17 were chosen, it would send to the British aerospace industry the wrong signal about its future. Will my right hon. Friend give the matter his careful consideration, in the knowledge that my constituents would build an extremely good wing for the A400M?

Mr. Hoon: We certainly appreciate the significance of the decision that has to be taken. We fully appreciate the importance of making progress, which is why we are urgently examining ways of enhancing aircraft capability in the short term, as well as in the long term, to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State has said that the decision is an important one. The RAF is looking forward to receiving the aircraft, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the RAF equipment budget is overspent? If so, how is it to afford the aircraft?

Mr. Hoon: The RAF equipment budget is not overspent. In assessing carefully the way in which that budget will be allocated, the short-term and longer-term heavy lift requirement will be uppermost in the minds of Ministers.

European Defence and Security Co-operation

Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to European defence and security co—operation. [104539]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom continues to play a leading role in shaping European policy on defence and security matters. The conclusions of the Helsinki European Council in December are fully in line with our European defence initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched just over one year ago.

Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time of growing international uncertainty and worrying signs of global unilateralism in the United States, it is ever more important that European countries co-operate in the cause of effective defence? Does he share my view that although it might be difficult for some countries to increase defence spending, we clearly do not currently obtain the capabilities we should obtain in return for the

spending we make? Is there not a strong case for better, more effective use of resources and less duplication among European allies?

Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. NATO Ministers have recognised the need to improve investments in key capability areas. All European nations will need to spend their defence budgets more effectively. Indeed, many are looking to emulate Britain's success and experience with the strategic defence review.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that no one is not in favour of sensible European defence co-operation, or does not agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about not duplicating resources? However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave concern, in NATO and elsewhere, that the sort of moves recently proposed by the Prime Minister are likely to lead to some extremely difficult reactions from our NATO colleagues? Is it not far better that NATO arrangements should be left to stand as they are, under NATO command, and that alternative European defence arrangements should be drawn up that do not in any sense conflict with the NATO command structure?

Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear on several occasions on which the issues have been discussed in the House that there will not be any sort of duplication, nor any sort of conflict between proposals made within the European Union context and our obligations under NATO. For many years, NATO Ministers have endorsed that approach because they recognise that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we strengthen NATO as a whole.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State will not have failed to note that Shorts SMS, which was jointly owned by Bombardier and Thomson-CSF, is now fully owned by Thomson-CSF. That should satisfy the Europhiles, who it appears would turn their backs on our United States allies. Will the Minister take note that Shorts SMS has very good relationships with American companies such as Raytheon and that there has been a free transfer of technology to Shorts SMS from some of its American allies? Will he ensure that support for Shorts and the fine work that it is doing continues, despite the persuasion of others that only European relationships are of importance?

Mr. Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in raising what I take to be if not a specific constituency interest, a more general one on behalf of his constituents. We are greatly concerned to ensure that for British industry, whether it is subcontracting for ultimately American-owned companies or for European or British-owned companies, we take fully into account all the contributions that are made in relation to each and every project. I shall take his observations into account in relation to both the generality and any specific contract that he might have had in mind.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On the matter of European defence policy and co-operation, what role is it


envisaged that Britain's nuclear capability will play, and what discussions have Her Majesty's Government had with the French Government in that regard?

Mr. Hoon: The co-operation that we have with our European partners will not affect in any way the use and deployment of Britain's nuclear deterrent. However, there is a long-standing process of discussion and agreement involving the two nuclear nations in Europe. France and Britain have co-operated together. If my right hon. Friend had in mind a particular article that appeared recently in The Spectator, I can assure him that the great majority of it was based on fantasy.

Housing

Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the refurbishment of service families' housing. [104540]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We are spending £ 470 million on a comprehensive programme to refurbish service families housing. Currently those families' quarters which have been upgraded total 7,958, or 14 per cent. A further 23,514, or 42 per cent., are close to this standard. The remaining families' quarters are at various stages of upgrade and it is planned that the programme will be complete by the end of 2005.

Mr. Gray: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he admit that about £ 11 million has been cut from the budget this year for the much-needed refurbishment of service accommodation? About 30,000 service families are currently living in substandard housing. Is he not concerned about the many vacant houses? For example, at RAF Lyneham in my constituency, there are about 80 houses vacant on a relatively small site. In that context, will he take an early opportunity to have a word with Councillor Mrs. Elizabeth Hitchens, the Liberal Democrat housing chairman on the North Wiltshire district council, who by chance is also a Ministry of Defence employee and the manager of the said 80 empty houses at RAF Lyneham?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I try to avoid talking to Lib Dem housing spokesmen. We have one in the city which I represent in part. The Lib Dems are making a big enough mess there to compensate for everywhere else.
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the plans for RAF Lyneham, in which I know he takes a tremendous interest, will include upgrading the Slessor road, Melsome road and Preston lane estates. I am sure that he will be happy about that. There is no reduction in the money that has been allocated for these purposes. The hon. Gentleman should examine the record of the Conservative party when it was in government before he came into the House, and the debacle of Annington Homes, when properties were sold off in a so-called private finance initiative, which seemed to be balanced entirely in the interests of the Nomura bank rather than those of the families housed in those properties.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Does the Minister agree that the previous Government's actions, especially on the sale of married quarters, were totally botched and appalling value for money for the taxpayer?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I have to agree with my hon. Friend; the previous Government did a botched-up job. We—including the families who are forced to live in substandard accommodation—have had to pay the price for the deal that the previous Government did, which partly financed tax cuts that the country could not afford. The people who lived in those houses could not afford for money to be dissipated in that way.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister knows that there is a great deal of service accommodation in my constituency. He will recall that in various sessions of Defence questions last year, I raised grave anxieties with the Minister for the Armed Forces about the way in which discussions were conducted between Ministry of Defence officials, especially Defence Estates officials, and officers of my local borough council. They bypassed the interests of elected representatives.
The Minister will be as shocked as I was to hear that, in the past few weeks, Ministry of Defence officials attempted to talk in confidence to officers of the council, thus completely bypassing councillors of all three parties who have a democratic mandate. There is anxiety about married quarters accommodation, and the danger of sweetheart deals between Defence Estates officials and developers, who will ignore the interests of local people. Will the Minister and his colleagues give a further rocket to officials in Defence Estates and ensure that those of all three parties who are democratically elected are consulted first about issues that relate to Deepcut and the Royal Logistic Corps and other defence sites?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-standing and well-established procedure of confidentiality in such discussions. I am not sure whether he is clear about the difference between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive. We are firmly committed to ensuring that those who live in substandard housing will live in housing of an appropriate quality by the end of the programme in 2005.
Many improvements are already under way. I cannot speak about specific housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the work that has been done on housing in, for example, Catterick, is of a standard that we want to achieve for all our service families.

Asset Sales

Mr. David Ruffley: If his Department's targets for efficiency savings and receipts from asset sales have so far been achieved. [104541]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Ministry of Defence's targets for efficiency improvements and the sale of surplus estate assets cover the period 1998 to 2002, as set out in the Department's public service agreement. The targets for 1998–99 were achieved, with efficiency savings of £594 million against a target of £505 million, and receipts from asset sales of £158 million against a target


of £150 million. The Department is on track to meet its targets in this financial year and over the remainder of the PSA period.

Mr. Ruffley: I draw the Minister's attention to the comments of Admiral Sir John Brigstocke. He said that £1.5 million, which had been earmarked for the Surgeon General's department, is being wiped out as efficiency savings. In other words, that represents £1.5 million of budget cuts. In the light of that, does the Minister understand the contempt of serving men and women in our armed forces for a Government who are happy to send them into battle zones but do not have the decency to fund the health care that they need when they fall sick?

Mr. Kilfoyle: That was a good try, but wholly misdirected. The claim is untrue. Such a cut has not been made. A letter from the admiral shows that our actions on resources and funding have been understood at the highest level. We are beginning a get well programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to rectify the cuts that we inherited. That takes time, and such action has to be balanced against other operational requirements.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister has hinted at part of the problem: the Government inherited a disastrous medical service that had been cut not on the basis of need, but purely to-make savings. Does he agree that we cannot run defence medical services in such a way and that, although it will take a long time, the Government are committed to replacing those services?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It was always anticipated that cuts would be made by the previous Government, but I fear that the real problem was their lack of both coherence and a comprehensive view of the country's defence needs. It is a constant refrain that they made ad hoc cuts in a variety of ways, which had consequences that they never imagined.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear from the outset that the Prime Minister's press spokesman is wrong and unfair to attack senior military staff for simply leaking documents ahead of budget discussions? That is outrageous. Is not the reality that there have been cuts in housing, fuel and health? The housing programme has slipped by at least three years, the Government cut the fuel budget by 30 per cent. and then had to raise it by 25 per cent., and there was definitely a cut of £1.5 million in the get well programme in their health budget. This morning, they panicked and talked about remedial action with fast-tracking in Portsmouth. Have they talked to Portsmouth health authority, and exactly what waiting list will they damage now?

Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I have not spoken to Portsmouth health authority; and no, I certainly would not question the probity of the Prime Minister's official spokesman—that would take a brave man on this side of the House. I also say no to the hon. Gentleman's assertions about where cuts have allegedly been made. Even if they had been made, I would ask him to say where he would find the money to make up those cuts, which are notional—he has invented them.

Defence Medical Services

Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the reorganisation of defence medical services. [104542]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The reorganisation of defence medical services following the strategic defence review is on track. We have established a close partnership with the Department of Health and with the national health service at local level to manage the transition to new arrangements in the Portsmouth area. As I announced on 13 December 1999, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust has been selected as the preferred host for the new centre for defence medicine and we are very excited by the prospects for that vital new development.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware that this is one problem that the Government cannot wriggle out of by trying to blame somebody else? He who dealt with a shortage of doctors and nurses by closing the one remaining military hospital—Haslar, in my constituency. What will be the cost of developing the new facilities at Birmingham and how do they compare with the cost of building up Haslar, as was planned in defence costs study 15 in 1994? He ought to have those numbers at his fingertips, but if he does not will he write to me in detail?

Mr. Spellar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with his Front-Bench spokesman, who said on the radio this morning:
You see it would be fair to blame us for cuts that happened as a result of that study".
He went on to say:
Oh I think absolutely … beyond any doubt we recognise that those cuts in the Defence Medical Services had gone too far.
I therefore think it very appropriate to blame a Government who cut £55 million out of £400 million on defence costs study 15. That led to the situation that we inherited, with the rundown of defence medical services.
Unfortunately, the problem with the medical side is that it takes much longer to train individuals in the medical disciplines in order to repair those cuts. I have been down to our defence hospital unit at Derriford in Plymouth and talked to the staff. There was tremendous enthusiasm in the unit, which is of the same type that we shall have in Portsmouth, precisely because it is getting the sort of work, throughput and training that will enable the staff to undertake their tasks. That is the real experience, not the scare stories that the hon. Gentleman is putting about.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will recall the report of the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament, which highlighted the Conservative Government's appalling cuts in resources, manpower and equipment. What action have this Government taken and can he assure the House that those cuts will be reversed?

Mr. Spellar: We have already allocated £140 million over four years. It was that which was behind the letter from Admiral Sir John Brigstocke when he said that the situation into which defence medical services had been allowed by the previous Administration to slip had now


been recognised at the highest level and that a get well programme was beginning. In addition, there are the other measures to which I have just drawn attention.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Given the Minister's sympathetic response, and accepting that the defence medical services' problems were inherited from the previous Government, as was amply demonstrated by the Select Committee's report, does he agree that the problems of the defence medical services, of overstretch and of procurement, and the other problems that the armed forces now face, simply demonstrate that the world has moved on from the strategic defence review? Is it not time to revisit that review and to match the Government's aspirations with our defence ability?

Mr. Spellar: It was as a result of the strategic defence review that we allocated the extra £140 million to defence medical services, moved towards a centre for defence medicine and, driven by the need for medical accreditation from the royal colleges, moved from Haslar into the arrangement with the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust. Those developments are starting to work their way through. One problem with the health service is that it takes much longer to train people and see the results of that compared with some other disciplines. That was the particular problem that resulted from the substantial cuts that were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on the radio this morning.

Mr. Robert Key: May we now come to the nub of the matter? Can the Minister explain to the House how it was, when I asked him what had happened to the £1.5 million allocated for orthopaedic waiting lists, that he said in a written answer last Monday that there had been no cut because there had been no allocation—a point that he repeated to the Select Committee? We then discovered that, as long ago as last December, Admiral Sir John Brigstocke had written confirming that there had been an allocation and a cut of £1.5 million. I for one feel misled. Who is right—the admiral or the Minister?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is becoming very excited. It would have helped not only him but the listeners and hon. Members if he had read the full answer that I gave on 17 January. I said:
Funding to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists … was not removed as part of my Department's efficiency programme as no funds had been allocated … At the beginning of the financial year consideration was given to the possibility of identifying funding to reduce waiting lists, primarily but not exclusively, for orthopaedic treatment. However, this did not prove to be practical, although some additional physiotherapy, provided through a separate initiative, is likely to have affected the numbers on waiting lists overall. The possibility of pursuing action to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists in the next financial year is currently under consideration."— [Official Report, 17 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 284W.]
That is absolutely true. I rather wish that the hon. Gentleman, along with some BBC reporters, would not be selective in quoting from such answers.

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Mr. David Heath: With what frequency the inventory of materials and equipment carried by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is reassessed. [104543]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The inventory of materials and equipment carried by Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is reassessed and tailored to each operational deployment. Key holdings are also reviewed during major maintenance periods.

Mr. Heath: I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, but is it not important that the basic inventory of equipment carried by the supply ships should be kept relevant to the operational requirements? If so, and given that warships are often now required to take on a humanitarian role, is it not important that kit and equipment that cannot be carried on a fighting ship are carried on Fort George or Fort Victoria and are available for immediate use?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right. Inventory ranges carried by RAF vessels are tailored to each deployment. As a result of a number of deployments that we have recently undertaken, a detailed review of humanitarian relief stores is in hand and due for completion in April this year.

Kosovo

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What inquiries he has made into the effectiveness of the operation of UK and NATO forces in Kosovo. [104544]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I visited Kosovo shortly before Christmas, meeting and talking to British forces working in KFOR. They have done and continue to do an outstanding job.
My predecessor, Lord Robertson, initiated a comprehensive study of what we learned from the Kosovo campaign. This work is continuing, and our findings will be published later this year.

Mr. Robathan: Has the Secretary of State read the leaked and highly critical internal report produced by the commander of 5th Airborne Brigade, who suggested that, had KFOR met serious Serb opposition, it would have had big problems? Today, I have been told that Tornado aircraft have been grounded after many sorties in Kosovo and the Gulf because they have run out of spares for their engines. The leaked report says that disproportionate staff effort was expended on MOD spin-doctoring, including bringing out General Jackson to do a job that Ministers should have been doing. In the service of a better defence of this realm, and to cut through the spin-doctoring, will the Secretary of State instigate a full inquiry, so that the House and the country can work out what could have been done better and what changes need to be made?

Mr. Hoon: General Jackson can defend himself far better than I can. I recall some of his observations, which


the hon. Gentleman may find relevant. When describing the Kosovo campaign he said that
to call it a close run thing, frankly, flies in the face of reality.
The hon. Gentleman may consider whether he, himself, is flying in the face of reality. On 4 January, General Jackson also said:
I look back and just recall … the entry into Kosovo by KFOR and I think … the record speaks for itself. It was a considerable success.
The House must judge whether it is prepared to trust the knowledgable and impartial account of the campaign given by General Jackson, or the account given by the official Opposition and the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Did the Secretary of State see the documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby "A Kosovo Journey"? Has he had a chance to read the report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe entitled "Kosovo/Kosova As Seen, As Told"? If so, does he accept that, since the KFOR occupation, 200,000 non-Albanians have been ethnically cleansed? Those who remain are daily terrorised and killed by the Kosovo Liberation Army. Those are the facts. The Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was slightly complacent, given those facts. When will we have a debate on what is happening at the moment in Kosovo, and when will we have a debate on getting the refugees back to their homes?

Mr. Hoon: I saw the television programme, and we accept that there have been difficulties in encouraging Serbs in particular to return to their homes and their jobs. The international community intervened in Kosovo to provide a multinational opportunity for Kosovo to continue. We do not want a situation to occur in which people are ethnically cleansed, whether they are Albanians or Serbs. The reason why international forces are present on the ground today is largely to protect the Serbian population. As I said, I visited British troops in Pristina, who are there to protect individual Serbs and communities of Serbs. There is absolutely no doubt that the international community is committed to the preservation of a multi-ethnic future for Kosovo.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the inquiry will include details on the success and failure of some of the high-tech equipment that was used in the Kosovo campaign, and will make recommendations to ensure that such equipment does not fail in future?

Mr. Hoon: A comprehensive account will be given of both the successes and failures of that mission. No military campaign is ever conducted entirely successfully, and we will learn the lessons. We have made it clear that a full account will be made to the House and to the country.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not the case that, whereas previously the Serbians were, as we all know, ethnically cleansing and murdering, the film—which was hostile to what was undertaken to liberate Kosovo—showed British and allied forces doing their utmost to protect them, although of course we would like to see more being done? Is it not also the case that, during the war itself, whenever something went wrong, the Tories used it time and again to try to discredit what was

being done? We should be proud of what we did to liberate Kosovo, and there is certainly no need to offer apologies of any kind.

Mr. Hoon: I was not offering an apology. My hon. Friend has put his case with considerable force and passion. British troops are there day in, day out, protecting members of minority communities. They are doing a superb job, and they are there at the behest of the international community to do the work that they are performing so successfully.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: As the Secretary of State will know, my colleagues and I believe that the armed forces are doing a fantastic job in Kosovo. They always deliver, as they are expected to do. That, however, is not the question. The question, surely, is whether the Government's drive for efficiency savings had a real impact on their ability to perform in Kosovo.
It is now being said that the armoured corps, when entering Kosovo, found itself in the terrible position of being short of spares for engines, gear boxes, oil and tracks. Its representatives say that that was simply because the equipment was released late and delivered late, with the result that vehicles were damaged. Will the Secretary of State confirm that?

Mr. Hoon: No, I will not. I remind the hon. Gentleman that British forces went into Kosovo as a peacekeeping operation. Various contingencies were planned for and prepared for, and, had it been necessary to meet armed resistance, British forces would have been equipped for such an eventuality. That, however, was not the case.
Instead of speculating on what might have been, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the words of General Jackson:
if the matter had had to have gone to offensive ground operations it would have been a quite different force, very much larger, structured for war fighting not for peace implementation.
That answers all the hon. Gentleman's observations. He can speculate as much as he likes, but the Kosovo operation was extraordinarily successful, and was carried out with great professionalism by British and international forces.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again, the Secretary of State avoids the answer. The question is not whether the British forces performed well, or would have been able to perform had they been asked to do something different. I have served, and those who have served know that they will do that anyway. The problem arises when a Government policy makes it more difficult for them to do so.
Is it not a fact that members of the armoured corps knew very well at the time that the reason they did not receive the correct spares on their way into Kosovo was what they believed to be a Ministry of Defence policy to make the MOD into something like a supermarket, getting equipment to them just in time? Our armed forces are now saying "Not enough, just in time." Is that not the truth?

Mr. Hoon: It is not the truth. I shall not repeat the various quotations that I have given about the operation in Kosovo, but the reality is that it was a considerable success.


However hard the hon. Gentleman tries to speculate and to dream up various contingencies, he cannot avoid the fact that the operation was completely successful. Had it been necessary to organise it differently, that would have been done.

European Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Denis MacShane: What progress he has made on the European strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement. [104546]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We continue to make excellent progress on European defence.
At December's Helsinki European Council, European Union member states committed themselves to strengthening their military capabilities so that European nations will be better able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain effective forces for NATO or EU-led operations. EU member states also agreed to develop the military structures necessary for the EU to decide and, where NATO is not engaged, to act in response to crises. This work will be taken forward under the Portuguese presidency of the EU.

Mr. MacShane: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the European security and defence identity initiative was launched in Berlin and signed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), a former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence? Is not the extent to which the Conservative party has moved hard to the right demonstrated by the fact that it is opposing an important initiative, which it launched, and which strengthens European and NATO identity and defence capability?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his opposite number, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), travelled to the United States last year to attack Her Majesty's Government's settled policy on the armed forces in front of Congress? Is there another example in recent history of a shadow defence spokesman going to a foreign power to attack the settled defence policy of Her Majesty's Government and armed forces?

Mr. Hoon: I confirm the factual point about the results of the Berlin summit, where all NATO states signed up to the European security and defence initiative. As for my hon. Friend's further observations, it is a matter of regret that Opposition Front-Bench Members tend to resile from decisions that they previously accepted in government. It may be an indication of their growing anti-Europeanism. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has a knee-jerk response to anything that contains the word "European."

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does not the Secretary of State's answer show the divorce between appearance and reality? The reality is that all the

signatories, including the Government, are cutting defence expenditure, rather than increasing it to meet the grand objectives. Is not the whole scheme more about integration than any military objective?

Mr. Hoon: As I have said frequently—it is something that the hon. Gentleman needs to concentrate on—the policy is about improving European nations' ability to make an effective contribution to NATO, something to which his predecessors agreed and, indeed, signed up. Making the European contribution to NATO more effective will strengthen the ability not only of European nations but of NATO to conduct defence and security activities, of which he should be in favour.

Army Exercises

Dr. Brian Iddon: What percentage of the Army (a) is deployed on, (b) is preparing for and (c) has returned in the last month from exercises away from their home base. [104548]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Approximately 4 per cent. of the trained Army is deployed on major exercises away from the home base, or has returned in the last month. In addition, some 30 per cent. of the trained Army is currently committed to operations. That is down from a peak of 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign. Once the agreed force reductions in Bosnia have been implemented in full, that figure should fall to 28 per cent., which would be below that inherited from the previous Administration.

Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him and his Department on the improved recruitment figures. However, the Secretary of State referred earlier to the continuing problem of retention. A £12 million package of allowances and bonuses was announced last year, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the armed forces to develop better family friendly policies, bringing families together whenever possible and increasing leave if possible? May I also make a plea for better counselling services for members of the armed forces who have problems?

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for identifying the problems of those who are overstretched by operations. We recognise the pressures that it puts on the individuals involved. That is why, as he has rightly identified, we have increased bonuses and provided 28 days leave at the end of six months deployment. We also recognise the importance of contact between service men and women out in the field and their families back home. That is why we have introduced 20 minutes telephone time to home, a fourfold increase from the previous figure.
We recognise that, as my hon. Friend rightly identified, service families have additional problems. That is why, through the service families task force, we have worked with other Departments to increase access to NHS


dentistry, to doctors lists in localities when people move and to schooling. We have representation on local school admission boards. We are also examining the use of the jobseeker's allowance. Those are all real and important developments, which are both very much welcomed in the forces and are contributing to greater harmony.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister have any ideas to place before the House on how it might be possible to ensure that, once actions involving front-line military forces have been completed, those

front-line forces are not retained on peacekeeping duties in which the United Kingdom's investment in their skills and training is under-utilised?

Mr. Spellar: We are very sensitive to problems of having to back-fill into various units, which is precisely why we have taken various actions both to increase recruitment and to improve retention, and to maintain the right balance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular example in mind, I am sure that he could write to me on it. We should then be pleased to examine the matter.

Points of Order

Mr. Robert Key: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, I raised the issue of the reduction in orthopaedic waiting lists for service men and women, which affects more than 5,000 members of our forces who are now unavailable for operational use. That is a matter of record, and I regret to say that the Minister's answer provided no satisfaction. The record is—

Madam Speaker: Order. A point of order has to be something for me. It is not to be used as a method whereby an hon. Member tries to correct the record. What is the point of order to me?

Mr. Key: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is that matter of record should be put right by the Minister for the Armed Forces.

Madam Speaker: Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but it seems that he is seeking to extend the exchange that he had at Question Time. Although there are methods of doing that on the Order Paper, and on other occasions, it cannot be done in a point of order to me now.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order—or, more candidly, on a point of grievance that is definitely for you, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, at 1.40 pm, about half a dozen hon. Members remained standing, attempting to take part in business questions. Business questions is rather a sacred part of the House's agenda, because it is the only occasion during the week when Back Benchers can raise points that are important to them. I make not the slightest complaint that I was down the queue, but it seemed rather hard to cut it short after 40 minutes when there were four hours of gas to come. The Braithwaite report was exempted business. I wondered whether you, Madam Speaker, had anything to say about protecting business questions.

Madam Speaker: I have a great deal to say about that in terms of fact. On Thursday, there was so much business—or whatever the hon. Gentleman wishes to describe it as—that the Seven o'clock rule had to be suspended, and many of us stayed here very much later.
I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the length of time that I intend to run business questions, as that is a matter of the feel of the House. However, on Thursday, for example, questions lasted for 40 minutes, which I happen to think is quite a good amount of time. At the end of that 40 minutes, 14 hon. Members were standing; I always notice how many hon. Members are standing at the end of the time.
Two hon. Members came in after the business statement had started, and one of them was the hon. Gentleman. I always note a time when hon. Members come in late. This morning, I wrote to him about the matter, as I did not wish to mention it on Thursday and embarrass him. I am sorry to have to do so now.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the controversy that has arisen in Wales this weekend, after the answer given by

the Secretary of State for Wales—in Hansard, 20 January 2000, column 589W—stating that not a brass farthing in objective 1 money will be coming to Wales from Brussels, have you had any request to make a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales or from a Treasury Minister on that very controversial matter?

Madam Speaker: I regret to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot assist him today, as I have not been told of such a statement being made in the House.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will notice that some of us become agitated during Question Time when some questions asked by colleagues ramble on and, in my view—after 20 years in this place—destroy Question Time. I believe that Question Time is being ruined by greedy Members. In that light, will you ask your Office to carry out some research into the time that Members now take to ask their questions, compared with years ago when I was younger and when, in my view, questions were much briefer? Questions were far more effective then because Ministers had less time to consider their responses, which were far sharper. It is not altogether fair to criticise Ministers for long answers. If a Minister is asked four questions by one Member, the Minister will reply to all four, so the one follows the other. If we deal with the problem of the questioner, the problem of the answerer will disappear.

Madam Speaker: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he and many other Members will have seen that I become agitated when questions ramble on. Only last week, I suggested that hon. Members might sit in the Tea Room at lunch time and work out their questions so that they would be more specific and more brisk. I cannot ask my Office to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I have a small Office, and that task would take up a great deal of resources. However, we have records of this matter for the past few years when I have been Speaker—and for before that—and there is a deterioration every few months. I have reported those records to the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip in the hope that there might be improvements. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's point of order today, as it allows me to reiterate my strong thoughts on this matter.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely understand why your Office does not have the time to do the research. However, there was an interesting article on this matter—by, I think, Mr. Parris—in The Times three weeks ago. He had a lot of figures, which may be of interest to your office.

Madam Speaker: I think that Mr. Parris must have got his figures from my Office.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise.

Madam Speaker: Not at all. I have the records.

Mr. Barry Jones: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for


Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), Madam Speaker, could I persuade you that his point of order was simply parliamentary by-election balderdash?

Madam Speaker: There is no response to that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having obeyed your strictures and worked out my question in advance—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a question—it is a point of order. I do not answer questions.

Mr. Howarth: My point is that I have followed your advice, and I hope, therefore, that you will hear this point of order. As you will appreciate, the only way in which Members of Parliament can find out what is going on and hold Departments to account is not by calling individuals before this House, but by calling Ministers to this House. It appears that there is a discrepancy between the information given by an admiral of the Royal Navy and that given by a Minister of the Crown. If the admiral is not lying, the Minister of the Crown is misleading the House. What are we to do about it?

Madam Speaker: I responded earlier to that point of order. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) have been here long enough to know that the Order Paper can be used—I have to spell it out— through parliamentary questions and other means, such as early-day motions, if Members feel that an incorrect answer has been given.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I add to my earlier point by recommending a solution to you? It is that when Members ask more than one or two questions, you rise to intervene and make them sit down. If that were to happen repeatedly during one Question Time, I believe that the conduct of Members in this House would change dramatically, and very quickly.

Madam Speaker: I shall respond to that point, although I do not want this debate to go on. It is not just a question of the number of questions that are asked—it is the very long preambles and the points of view that are expressed. That is what takes up the time, not questions. Members always express an opinion before they get to their question. Can we proceed with today's business? From whom have I not heard a point of order?

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Madam Speaker: I am in a good mood today—carry on.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier, you said that I was not in the Chamber for last week's business statement. You could be forgiven for saying that, but in fact I was here for the end of the debate

on the millennium bug, having wafted up to my normal seat. However, I left when other hon. Members were called before me.

Madam Speaker: I saw the hon. Gentleman come into the Chamber when the Leader of the House was on her feet and two thirds of the way through the business statement.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you agree that questions that are more than about two sentences long give the person responding too much scope? Would not it be better if questions were restricted to a couple of sentences? We would get through business much more quickly.

Madam Speaker: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a sound point, but if it is appropriate for erring Back Benchers to be scolded by you and subject to your strictures, should it not be so for Ministers too? Although Back Benchers can be guilty of indulging in lengthy questions and preambles, Ministers often do not have even the square root of an answer to a Back Bencher's question. However, they succeed in taking two or three minutes to demonstrate that important fact.

Madam Speaker: What Ministers say in response to questions is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was surprised that I chose
to say something different in public from what he has said to me in private."—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 853.]
As I have never discussed the Royal Ulster Constabulary in private with the Secretary of State, am I to assume that his statement could be deemed to be misleading the House? I did meet him in the company of the Prime Minister and the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Is that deemed to have been a private meeting? If my approach at that meeting and when I spoke in the House last week remained consistent, is the Secretary of State to be deemed to have misled the House?

Madam Speaker: I cannot determine or interpret what takes place at meetings involving hon. Members and Ministers. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Our rules may be straightforward, but would you remind the House that Ministers should reply only on those subjects for which they have responsibility, and that, on the whole, hon. Members should not read their speeches?

Madam Speaker: That is a good rule to follow.

Orders of the Day — Disqualifications Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill, inter alia, changes the anomaly created by section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which permits a member of the Irish Senate to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not of any other United Kingdom legislature. It replaces that provision with measures that will bring about a broader and closer relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic, by treating Northern Ireland as any other part of the United Kingdom.
The Bill ends the prohibition against members of the Irish legislature—that is, of both the Dail and the Senate—being a member of any legislature in the United Kingdom. They will therefore be permitted to be Members of this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill will place the Irish Republic in a position broadly similar to that of Commonwealth countries, whose legislators have been able to join legislatures here. It is a small step towards creating a closer relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister seeks to draw a parallel between the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries, but Commonwealth countries have Her Majesty the Queen as their head of state.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: No, that is wrong. Two thirds of them do not.

Mr. Howarth: Most of them do. In any case, an hon. Member in this House is required to take the Oath of Allegiance. The Bill covers people who, being representatives of foreign countries, cannot take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. Moreover, the south of Ireland is a republic. Is not the Bill therefore creating a huge anomaly?

Mr. O'Brien: I will deal shortly with the issue of European and Commonwealth countries, but primarily as this applies to the latter. It is true that some Commonwealth countries are republics.

Mr. Mackinlay: The majority.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will, once more.

Mr. Bercow: Before the Bill's publication, how many representations in its support did the hon. Gentleman receive, when, and from whom?

Mr. O'Brien: There have been discussions on this, but we shall be listening closely to what is said in this debate

and as the Bill proceeds through the House. There have been discussions with various representatives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]. I refer to the Government, the Irish Government and others. I hope that the Bill will command a great deal of support in the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: No.

Mr. O'Brien: I nevertheless hope that we can convince Opposition Members that this is a worthwhile Bill.
This country has a number of special relationships with other countries—with the United States, for example, on security, with the Commonwealth, of course, with other members of the European Union, and also with the Irish Republic, with which we are working to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
Our relationships with the Irish Republic are special in geographical terms, given the sheer proximity of the two countries, as islands off the European mainland. We have historic links, for better or worse. Our economic links are strong. We have cultural links—millions of British people were born in the Republic, or their parents were born there, or their ancestry is Irish, whether from the north or south.
For its own political reasons, the Republic left the Commonwealth. That did not end its special relationship, but it made it more difficult to facilitate the recognition of certain links. If the Republic had not left the Commonwealth, some of the changes in the Bill might not be necessary.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: May I just say before I give way to the hon. Gentleman that this will be the third occasion on which I have done given way? I propose to make some progress after the hon. Gentleman has made his point, because I hope that this will not be too long a debate.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he predicates his argument on the relationship between the Irish Government and this Government, I wonder whether he has had any representations from the Fianna Fail party, Fine Gael, the Irish Labour party or the Democratic Left, expressing an ambition to have a dual mandate? Or is this measure purely a concession to be enamelled on the side of the Good Friday agreement and to facilitate only and exclusively Sinn Fein-IRA?

Mr. O'Brien: I propose to discuss some of these issues as we progress. However, let me make it clear that we have had some discussions with the Irish Government, which I hope reflect some of the views of various parties in the Republic.
The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement. It is not directly linked to it, but is a separate measure. The Bill, recognises, however, that there is a special relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole—


I emphasise that phrase—and the Republic. It puts members of the Irish legislature in a position similar to those of Commonwealth legislatures.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: This will be the fourth occasion on which I have done so, and it will, I hope, be the last.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. This is quite a sensitive matter, and I want to be clear in my mind. My hon. Friend says that unlike certain other countries, Ireland is not a Commonwealth member and chose not to be a one—it was not driven out. Is he saying that a special category will be created for non-Commonwealth countries enabling them to have dual mandates?

Mr. O'Brien: I am spelling out for my hon. Friend and for the rest of the House the view that, due to various reasons that I have set out, there is a special relationship not only with the United States, the Commonwealth and other members of the EU, but with the Republic of Ireland. We need not labour that point too much; it is clear that we have geographical, economic, cultural relationships—indeed all sorts of relationship—on which we must ensure that we build. That point is fairly straightforward.
All the measure does is put members of the Irish legislature in a position similar to that of members of Commonwealth legislatures. There is little real change in principle. Members of legislatures of the Republic of Bangladesh, the Kingdom of Brunei, the Republic of Uganda, Canada, Australia or Tonga can be members of legislatures in this country. However, at present legislators from the Irish Republic are in a different position.
Members of the Irish Senate can be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but there are restrictions on their membership of other legislatures in the United Kingdom. The Bill would end that anomaly. In future, the same rules as apply to Northern Ireland would apply to all the United Kingdom.
For many years, Irish citizens have shared with Commonwealth citizens the right to vote in British elections. They have been able both to stand for and to vote in elections to the House of Commons, but there is one significant difference in their treatment. Under current law, members of Commonwealth legislatures—unlike members of foreign legislatures—can become Members of this House, but Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament cannot, even though all other Irish citizens can do so.
Section 36(5) of the 1998 Act was the unique exception; that provision can now be repealed by clause 3. The Bill does not single out Northern Ireland for special treatment; Northern Ireland is treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. As part of the process—

Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way at the moment.
As part of the process of building on the special relationship, the restrictions on Members of the Dail—the lower Irish House—will be ended. In regularising relationships, it is difficult to argue that the Senate should be treated differently from the Dail. The measure will merely put members of the Irish legislature on the same footing as members of Commonwealth legislatures. It rightly reflects the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Irish Republic.
The importance of keeping electoral law in good order was illustrated in 1982. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), before he was elected to the House, was disqualified from the then Northern Ireland Assembly because he had been appointed to the Irish Senate by the Taoiseach. That outcome was controversial at the time. It would now be out of step with the transformed political landscape in Northern Ireland and with relationships between the two countries.

Mr. Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman towards the end of my speech. I have given way on many occasions and I want to make some progress. I want to make several points.

Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give way?

Mr. O'Brien: In particular, the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement makes the measure timely. The agreement gave a new shape to all these relationships, and created a new architecture of institutional links throughout these islands. Those links respect the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, but provide a framework for practical co-operation between the United Kingdom, the devolved bodies and Ireland.
When devolution and the new institutions came into force on 2 December last year, the Irish Government repealed the longstanding territorial claim over Northern Ireland in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. That makes it clear that a united Ireland can be achieved only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. With the principle of consent at the heart of the new constitutional settlement, there is a solid basis for a closer relationship between our two countries.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is just one example of that closer relationship. However, it is built on the firm foundation of the principle of consent that is central to the Good Friday agreement, and which was enshrined in law through the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and reinforced by international treaty. It cannot be undermined. There is no question of the Bill being the means to achieving Irish unification by the back door; that is not its objective, nor will it be its consequence.
The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
As a further positive—if relatively minor—measure which can help to improve relationships between our two countries, I welcome the Bill, and hope that hon. Members will feel that they can do so too.
I shall now give way to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). Then I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has been asking me to give way, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Then I shall make progress.

Mr. Mates: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have to take him back a bit, because I wanted to question him on a specific point that he made. He said that he was putting the Northern Ireland Assembly on the same basis as all the other institutions of the United Kingdom, but that is fundamentally to miss a point. There are only two sovereign institutions in these islands—the Parliament here and the Parliament in Dublin. The others are subordinate to one of those sovereign Parliaments. By changing that rule, the hon. Gentleman is allowing people to join two different sovereign Parliaments with two different aims in mind, so there is a major conflict of loyalty.

Mr. O'Brien: One of the issues that I proposed to discuss in due course was the issue of conflict of loyalties, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment it is possible for a person who is a member of a legislature in Brunei or Bangladesh to be a member of this legislature, so it is already, in a sense, within our law; but perhaps I may discuss that in due course.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has given us an account of the precedents and legal background, and the House is grateful for that, but he has not told us the motive behind the Bill. I believe that hon. Members would like to know why we are being asked to address this matter now. Where does the pressure come from? Why are we being asked to do it?

Mr. O'Brien: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that I have indicated that we have now, as a result of the changes that have taken place and the relationship that has developed over recent years, been able to put behind us, to some extent, some of the difficulties that had arisen between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will find it satisfactory.

Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I promised to give way next to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.

Mr. Mackinlay: I do not know whether the Minister's notes encompass this point, but is he mindful of the fact that, between the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922 and the passage by the Attlee Government of legislation consequent upon the Costello Government's declaring the

Irish Republic in the late 1940s, it was wholly possible for people to sit in two legislatures? Indeed, Eamon de Valera was elected to the Northern Irish House of Commons after the establishment of the Irish Free State; that was perfectly acceptable then.
Surely the Minister should rely on the argument that the 1949 legislation created a new inconsistency, in that it extended and continued the right of Irish Republic citizens to vote in our elections and to stand for election to Westminster, but drew a distinction between Ireland and most citizens of the emerging Commonwealth. Coincidentally, as Ireland left the Commonwealth, India came in as its first republic. We should bear it in mind that the majority of states in the Commonwealth are now republics, so the arguments used by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) are wholly bogus.

Mr. O'Brien: Most of my hon. Friend's points are quite right. There are a number of historical reasons why we created what is, in effect, an anomaly. The anomaly is that we have a special and unique institutional arrangement whereby Members of the Irish Senate can become Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are best placed to ensure that we regularise the relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom by providing that members of the Irish legislature can be members of any legislature in the United Kingdom. That is the view that the Government have taken, but those Members who wish to take a different view can do so.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

Mr. Howard: The Minister told the House that, although the Bill was not part of the Good Friday agreement, it was envisaged at the time of the agreement that it would be introduced. Can he point to any on-the-record statement to support that view? Was anything ever said at the time of the Good Friday agreement to the effect that this measure would be taken?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously misheard me. I did not say that the Bill's introduction was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement—I did not say that at all. Let me make it clear that the Bill arose after the Good Friday agreement. It is not directly linked to the agreement except in the sense that, following a number of changes that took place both before and after the agreement, relations between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom as a whole developed and got stronger, closer and better. We now need to ensure that we deal with anomalies in our legislation. The Bill happens to relate to one of them and we are proceeding to deal with it.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so this is the last time I propose to do so.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister but—if I dare—may I try to persuade him not to cease to give way? He may learn from those of us who are slightly closer to the coalface than he is.
Will the Minister clarify one point? He says that he wants to remove anomalies. Will a Member of the Irish Dail be able to be a Member of the two other subordinate Assemblies—those in Scotland and in Wales? That point is not yet clear.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I said at the start of my speech—I have the note in front of me so I can quote it—that the Bill would cover the House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know that the hon. Gentleman has—to use his own phrase—been close to the coalface for a long time and that he has dealt with many difficult issues. I always listen to him with great care, but it is important to create a situation in which, as far as possible, we consider the United Kingdom as a whole— which we are doing—and remove the unique position in respect of the north alone.
We should also deal with another anomaly whereby the Senate has been treated differently from the Dail. Once we recognise that they are anomalies and deal with them, we will be better placed. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on many of these issues, I hope that we shall be able to convince him not only that the proposal is the right thing to do, but that this is the right time to do it.
Some would argue, for example, that the Bill's timing is wrong and that it should perhaps be linked to decommissioning. May I deal with that argument? We are at one on the importance of decommissioning. All parties are now agreed that decommissioning is an essential part of the process, that it should begin as soon as possible and that it is for the de Chastelain commission to deal with precisely how and when. The commission has said that it will issue a report in January. That will be of great importance. The future of the Good Friday agreement is obviously linked to its performance, which includes issues of decommissioning. However, the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement and should be seen and treated separately. We agree on the objective of decommissioning, but frankly, I do not think that the Bill provides the means for advancing it.
I recognise, for example, that Sinn Fein should not benefit politically if the IRA defaults on decommissioning, but the benefit conferred by this Bill falls to all Members of the Dail. As a result of the Bill, any member could also stand for election to this House. There are 130 Members of the Dail, of whom just one is a Sinn Fein TD. We should not assume that Sinn Fein members are the only ones with an interest in pursuing politics both north and south of the border.
In the past, a number of individuals from the broad nationalist tradition have pursued such an interest. For example, Austin Currie, a founding member of the Social Democratic and Labour party, is now a Fine Gael TD, and John Cushnahan, a former member of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, is also now a Fine Gael TD. As we know, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, before being elected to this House, was a member of the Irish Senate, and Conor Cruise O'Brien, a distinguished former Irish Minister, chose to stand in 1996 in Northern Ireland as a member of the party of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—the United Kingdom Unionist party.
I quote those examples to demonstrate that the pool of individuals who might have an interest in benefiting from the Bill goes far wider than Sinn Fein, and we must be clear about that. We must also remember that Sinn Fein is the minority nationalist party in the north and that, in the south, at the last general election, it secured just 1 per cent. of the vote. To suggest, therefore, that the wide pool of potential beneficiaries should be denied the sensible treatment that is already available to members of Commonwealth legislatures, simply because Sinn Fein members would be such beneficiaries, is unfair and out of proportion.
If the issue is to be linked with something else, the right and better link is with the resolution of the overall constitutional issues between our countries. Until those were resolved, there was always, understandably, a question mark over whether it was truly possible to have the closest of relationships with the Irish Republic, as symbolised by this type of measure.
That issue has, to some extent, been resolved by the Good Friday agreement—negotiated between all parties and the two Governments—and the referendum that followed, in which the people of the Irish Republic overwhelmingly endorsed changes to the Irish constitution to place consent at the heart of their aspiration for a united Ireland. Most importantly, on 2 December, those constitutional changes, along with corresponding changes in British constitutional law, were brought into effect, in parallel with the devolution of power and the establishment of the Good Friday institutions.
With the agreement on consent now in force and new articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution in effect and capable of being changed again only by another referendum, regardless of developments under the rest of the Good Friday agreement, the Government believe that the way is clear for this Bill. Over many years, we have developed close working relationships with the Irish Government, but with agreement now in force between us on constitutional issues, the way is clear for the formalisation of that relationship. To some extent, the Bill provides some basis for that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has been full in his explanation, but will he deal with two matters that have not been dealt with? First, is it right to conclude that the Bill has a purely Irish genesis and is not part of any wider review of whether there should be a dual mandate between other legislatures and ours, or of whether one should have to be qualified by residence to stand for a legislature? Secondly, if the Bill does have only an Irish background in recent history, when did the matter first come to Ministers' attention as a proposal for legislative consideration?

Mr. O'Brien: The relationship between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom is in many ways special. I think that I have outlined the reasons for that, so I shall not rehearse those points.

Mr. Maginnis: Go on, give us the reasons again.

Mr. O'Brien: I thought that I had already described them. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go through my


whole speech again, I suppose that, notwithstanding the time and the nature of the debate, I could oblige him—although I do not think it necessary.
The issue arose after the Good Friday agreement was made, during further discussions between the two Governments. It was one of the issues on which we felt helpful progress could be made. I shall, as agreed, give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North and then deal with the other point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most encouraging features of the past 15 years has been the better relationship at ministerial and parliamentary level between Britain and the Republic of Ireland—in spite of the opposition of a few, although not the majority of, Opposition Members? Does not the Bill strengthen that relationship and remove one or two anomalies, and is it not therefore to be warmly welcomed?

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I agree that the Bill will remove some of the anomalies and that it is to be welcomed.
I did not respond to one point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey: whether the Bill is part of a wider process. It is part of the development of a special relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Republic of Ireland. We do not therefore envisage extending its provisions to other countries that are not members of the Commonwealth. The Bill signals a recognition that, on certain issues, we have particular relationships with other countries and international organisations, including the United States, the European Union, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland. It is right that we should ensure that we properly recognise such relationships.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No—I must conclude my speech.
I recognise that there are concerns about conflicts of interest, but the holding of dual mandates does not, in itself, represent a conflict of interest or make it impossible for such elected representatives to carry out their duties effectively. Several hon. Members here today are also members of devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom.
The position of Ministers who take Executive decisions differs from that of Back Benchers who participate and press points in two different legislatures. Ministers must be in a position to take into account the best interests of people in the jurisdiction they govern. That might not be possible if a Minister is also a Minister in another sovereign country. Conflicts of interest might arise, or be thought to arise. That is why clause 2 prohibits Ministers of the Irish Government from taking up ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In addition, the clause states that a junior Minister, First Minister or

Deputy First Minister of the Assembly would have to resign his or her position in the Assembly Executive before becoming a Minister in the Irish Government.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has not yet intervened. However, it will be the last time I give way.

Mr. Ross: The Minister said earlier that Members of Parliament could also be elected to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. However, the Bill does not bar them from becoming Ministers in those devolved Administrations. Why not?

Mr. O'Brien: That is one of the issues that can be discussed in Committee. Following representations of which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware, it was argued that, because it might give rise to concern in Northern Ireland, that issue should be specifically addressed in legislation. It has been addressed in clause 2. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that we are listening to representations from all parties.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is modest, but worth while. It makes no dramatic changes, but simply extends to the Irish legislature existing provisions that permit members of Commonwealth legislatures to become Members of Parliament. That is in line with a wide range of special provisions in electoral law covering Ireland and Commonwealth countries. The Bill builds on the existing provision allowing Members of the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and extends it to other UK legislatures and to Members of the Irish Dail.
The Bill provides a further example of the development of mutually beneficial relationships between our two countries and throughout these islands—relationships that are now based firmly on the principle of consent. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for raising the matter in this way, but I think that I am justified in so doing because the Minister failed to give way to me. Have you received any representations from the Government to suggest that they are contemplating a change in the Oath that is taken by hon. Members?

Madam Speaker: No, I have received no such indication from the Government at any time.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading. However, there are issues that the Opposition hope the Minister will help to resolve, either today or during succeeding stages of the Bill's consideration. We are in no doubt that the Bill has serious implications. That is why we have tabled an


amendment for the Committee stage, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) will move. We shall also support two amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
Before turning to our reservations, I want to join the Minister in welcoming the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland over the past few years. It represents a real step forward in its sadly troubled history. After all the horrors of the past 30 years of the troubles, marked as they have been by truly wicked and vile atrocities, we all hope that, at long last, Northern Ireland is looking forward to a new era of peace and stability. It should be one in which political differences are resolved by dialogue rather than by violence, and in which everybody accepts that the future of Northern Ireland must be determined by democracy and consent, not by gun and bomb.
No one on either side of the House should underestimate the leadership, courage and vision that has been shown by many politicians from Northern Ireland, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in negotiating the Good Friday agreement and in bringing us to the current position. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and to Lord Mayhew of Twysden for their contributions.
As the Minister said, we accept that there is a seeming discrepancy: although both Irish and Commonwealth citizens may vote in United Kingdom elections, provided that they fulfil the relevant residency requirements, members of Commonwealth legislatures may sit in the House but members of the Irish legislature may not. However, we must be careful that in resolving that seeming anomaly we do not create others.
Although members of Commonwealth legislatures are entitled to sit in the House, there are obvious difficulties for members with an allegiance to one country sitting in a Parliament where they are required to declare an allegiance to another country. Our safeguard is the Oath, which has always applied. Every Member of the House, regardless of origin, must take the Oath. No Member taking the Oath should put the interests of another country first.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is relying on the precedent created in favour of members of Commonwealth legislatures. Does she understand and agree that many of us, if we were considering this matter afresh, would not wish to give those members a right to sit in this place because of the conflict of interest?

Miss Widdecombe: I recognise that. My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. However, we cannot rewrite history; we must start from where we are. I am trying to address the issue in the context of where we are.

Mr. Mackinlay: I invite the House, including the right hon. Lady, to pause for a moment. I have no difficulty with the Oath, but others clearly do. It appears that we forget that mandates come from the people. I have always thought it odd that we should decide who should be eligible to represent people. Surely it is a fundamental

point of democracy that people are entitled to choose the good, the bad, the indifferent, the republican or the monarchist—it is a matter for the people. If someone receives a mandate from the electorate, in my view he is entitled to serve in this legislature or any other to which his mandate sends him.

Miss Widdecombe: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. When hon. Members participate in running a country or in scrutinising its running, they must, first and foremost, have allegiance to that country. The Oath has solved the problem of serving two masters and the attendant conflict of interest.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Bill does not affect the Oath and the Government have no plans to change it.

Miss Widdecombe: I recognise the phrase "have no plans"; I know it of old. I ask the Minister to go a little further. Will he give a cast iron, on-the-record guarantee that the Government will never, under any circumstances, propose or support a move to abandon or amend the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that no Parliament can bind another. That is constitutional basics.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall be happy to accept an assurance that merely binds the current Government.

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady will have to accept the assurance that has been given. I have clearly indicated the Government's view. The right hon. Lady may use phrases such as "have no plans" in a disingenuous or misleading way, but the Government do not.

Miss Widdecombe: The Minister has given a wonderful hostage to fortune, which we have all heard. I take it that he is not prepared to give a cast iron, on-the-record guarantee that the Government will never, under any circumstances, propose or support a move to abandon or amend the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Hon. Members should note that carefully in the context of this measure and, perhaps, in others that we may consider.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have noted the Minister's reluctance to give such a guarantee. However, given the stress that my right hon. Friend placed on the importance of the Oath as a guarantee, is she not developing a powerful case for voting against the measure on Second Reading?

Miss Widdecombe: No. My hon. Friend has been here long enough to know that Second Reading is a means of moving to further, detailed discussions of the Bill, including probing matters further and debating amendments. It would be odd to rule out further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Forth: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady's comments imply that the Conservative party believes that the rewording of the Oath should never be considered. A Member of Parliament who is not from Northern Ireland said to me the other day that the current Oath does not accommodate hon. Members who have been properly elected, but have republican views or sympathies. Does the right hon. Lady claim that those who are properly elected should be prevented from taking their places because they did not agree to, or stand on a platform of allegiance to a monarch? Such people respect monarchs, but believe that their allegiance is not to them, but to the people who elected them, and to the Parliament of the country where they were elected.

Miss Widdecombe: When we talk about "Her Majesty's Government" and "Her Majesty's Opposition", we do not use the terms lightly. They have a clear constitutional implication. I hope that all Opposition Members would oppose any suggestion of watering down the Oath of Allegiance.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the extraordinary parliamentary philosophy that she outlined a moment ago? Apparently, we no longer oppose Bills on Second Reading because we want to consider them later in detail. Surely it is possible—and in the case of this measure, proper—to oppose a Bill in principle when it would affect so significantly the relationship between this legislature and others.

Miss Widdecombe: I was not setting out a general principle that Second Readings should never be opposed. If a principle is overriding, Second Readings will be opposed. I am anxious to build on the developments in Northern Ireland, although not at any price—I shall discuss that in a moment—and therefore we shall not oppose Second Reading. Perhaps I can make progress with the reservations that we have about the Bill.
The Minister will be aware of the deep unease in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, which Conservative Members share, that despite moves that have been made—not least the early release of more than 300 terrorist prisoners—there has as yet been no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by those paramilitary organisations that signed up to the Good Friday agreement. Our view, therefore, is that the Bill should not take effect unless there has been substantial and verifiable decommissioning. Our amendment—which, if selected, we shall press to a vote in Committee tomorrow—reflects that.
As part of the Mitchell review, General de Chastelain must report on progress by the end of this month. Of course, we hope and pray that he will be able to report that decommissioning by the paramilitaries has begun, but if not, and if that process is stalled, nobody should be in any doubt as to where the responsibility lies—not with the

right hon. Member for Upper Bann or other constitutional politicians, who have done everything that has been asked of them, but with the paramilitaries and their political representatives, who have not.
Without a start to credible decommissioning, the Bill will be seen as yet another example of all take and no give by the paramilitaries. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has tabled an amendment that would ensure that the Bill, if enacted, would not come into force until there was substantial progress on decommissioning, verified by the de Chastelain commission.
Although the Republic of Ireland has not been a member of the Commonwealth since 1949, we accept that that does not detract from the fact that it has a unique historical relationship with the United Kingdom, which has been set out across the years and is explicitly recognised in legislation. Section 2(1) of the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed when the then Irish Free State declared itself a republic outside the Commonwealth, clearly says that
notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country".
That has been manifested in many different ways over the years, not least the co-operation between the British and Irish Governments on Northern Ireland in recent years.
Many of the old antagonisms that used to cloud British-Irish relations have given way to a more constructive partnership. A great advantage of the Good Friday agreement is the opportunity it creates to build on that, especially now that the offensive territorial claim over Northern Ireland in the Irish constitution has at long last gone. The British-Irish agreement, which came into force last month, introduced new and closer ties throughout these islands through the British-Irish Council. Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, we view it as a significant development that should facilitate closer co-operation on a range of issues, without in any way undermining sovereignty.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 enabled Members of the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as the Minister pointed out. That dealt effectively with the situation that occurred in 1982 when the current Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland was disqualified from the then Assembly because he was serving in the Senate. That Act did not include Members of the Dail. Clause 2 of the Bill rectifies that and removes the prohibition on sitting in the Assembly that applies to members of one half of the Irish legislature. The Opposition do not oppose that, but we recognise that it is important that there is a prohibition on the appointment of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive who are also Ministers in the Government of the Irish Republic, as there clearly could be conflict of interest in the exercise of Executive power. I am grateful that the Government recognise that, too.
We believe that the Bill should go further, however, and also state that a Member of the Irish Parliament, should he be appointed a Minister, should at that point be disqualified from the Assembly and from Westminster. Therefore, we shall support the amendment to that effect in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
The Opposition are committed to the establishment of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement and the devolution of power to the


Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have provided a real basis for such a lasting peace. Therefore, we shall not divide the House on Second Reading. However, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Government to take into account the progress made on decommissioning before bringing the Bill into force, to guarantee the continuation of the Oath in its present form and to accept that Ministers of other Governments should not sit in this House.
We strongly support the Good Friday agreement, but that agreement must be implemented in full—in all its parts and by everyone. It is our strong view that all parties must fulfil all their obligations. Only when that happens can we really start to believe that the paramilitaries are truly committed to democratic and peaceful means and that a lasting peace can be established.
We shall therefore give the Bill a fair passage to its next stages, but I hope that, between now and tomorrow, when those stages commence in the House, the Minister will carefully consider what I have asked for and will respond positively.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am somewhat bemused. I had hoped that, in the discussion of the reasons for Her Majesty's Government proposing what is a constitutional change, there would be a clear explanation of the situation, not only as it exists, but as it will exist after the passing of the law. I regret to say that I am more confused now than I was when I entered the Chamber.
I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I would say this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary: constitutional change needs to be carefully thought out, and its implications carefully examined. I understand the desire to normalise relationships with Ireland, particularly in the light of the advances that are being made and the desire to have stability and change in Northern Ireland. However, to deal with one anomaly by creating a dozen others does not seem altogether an admirable solution. I would have been happier had my hon. Friend, whom I know to be not only a sterling member of the Front Bench, but an honest and straightforward one, been able to assure me that various qualifications would have been automatically written in at this point—not later, but at this point.
Will it be necessary to have the same qualifications of residency? Are the same responsibilities to be put upon the people who are involved and who could benefit from the legislation? Will the constraints that we have in relation to this Chamber be the same after the Bill has been passed?
Because of the historical accident that Irish citizens can not only vote but take part in local government and in our system of elections, I understand why it is felt that Ireland has a different relationship. But the reality is that it is outwith the Commonwealth; it is not on a par with Commonwealth countries. I must ask my hon. Friend whether this will not be used as a precedent for other non-Commonwealth countries in the future. I could understand if, in seeking to tidy up legislation, one came here and said that it was no longer sensible for other Commonwealth representatives to have the right to sit here, but that does not seem to be the case. What we are

doing today seems, if well intentioned, ill-researched. It may even be somewhat wider in its context and somewhat more immediate in its results than Her Majesty's Government may have considered.
These days, I suppose that I could be said to represent the forces of conservatism, although I discover that my position within the Labour party seems to sway from side to side—not because of anything that I do, but because others take a different view of where I stand. However, I am really rather discomfited by the suggestions that have been made today, and even more discomfited by the fact that I see no one on the Government Benches questioning them. We may discuss constitutional change, but I believe that the right to sit in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is one of the most important rights of a citizen. It carries with it responsibilities and duties. The Oath of Allegiance is not to a particular person: it is to our head of state. We must never lose sight of that fact, whatever people may think about our system.
I have difficulty with the measure; we have not been given a full explanation of the need for it. Its implications are much more wide ranging than my hon. Friend suggested, and I could not support it in the Lobby.

Mr. Michael Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), especially as, on this occasion, I agree with much of what she said. I seek the indulgence of the House for my absence during the wind-up speeches, depending on when they take place. I have a long-standing speaking engagement in Cambridge this evening, which I am honour bound to keep.

Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be back to vote, I hope.

Mr. Howard: I hope so, but it depends on when the vote takes place.
I believe that the Bill is wrong in principle. Underlying the Disqualification Act 1975, which this Bill amends, and all previous disqualification legislation is the principle that an hon. Member should be free from possible conflicts of interest that might distract his behaviour as an independent member of the legislature and his freedom to represent the best interests of his constituents. As the Library note puts it, this House-based objective has been historically the basis of the great majority of disqualifications. It is a principle previously accepted as self-evident.

Dr. Palmer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in that case, it would be necessary to abolish the right of members of one European Union state to stand for the European Parliament in another, as Lord Steel did a few years ago when he stood in Italy as a candidate for the European Parliament?

Mr. Howard: It is possible to have more than one view on that, but I do not think that that follows from what I have argued because the European Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament. The essence of my argument has to do with the sovereignty of this Parliament and that of the Republic of Ireland.
The principle to which I have referred is reinforced by the Oath of Allegiance. I, for one, do not understand how it is possible to be loyal to that Oath and to serve loyally in another sovereign Parliament. No one should expect that to be possible. We are not concerned with a problem of terminological inconvenience. At the very core of the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is his duty to promote the interests of the country of whose Parliament he is a Member. No two countries have interests that are always identical. Whenever those interests diverge, a member of the legislature in both countries is faced with precisely the type of conflict of interest that it is the purpose of the Disqualification Act 1975 to prevent.

Mr. Hogg: Although, unlike my right hon. and learned Friend, I should like the Oath to be changed, it none the less focuses on the nature of the duty owed. The duty owed by any hon. Member in this House is a duty to the interests of this country.

Mr. Howard: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct. That is precisely the point.
The divergence of interests between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland has been and remains conspicuous. In this country's hour of greatest peril 60 years ago, the Irish state stood apart. To this day, the Republic of Ireland continues to stand apart from the military alliance that has done so much to preserve peace over the past 50 years. It is not a member of NATO; it is neutral.
The Irish Republic is part of European economic and monetary union. No one can seriously doubt that the interests of a country that is a member of that union and those of a country that is not cannot be identical. To state those differences is merely to set out a series of facts. They are indisputable.
We have before us legislation that is wrong in principle. Indeed, the error of that principle seems to be recognised in the legislation itself. Clause 2 provides that no one should be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive
if he is a Minister of the Government of Ireland.
That can be only because the Government themselves recognise that to hold ministerial office in both Administrations would be to fall foul of the very conflict of interests to which I have referred.
Ministers nod, but this was the thinnest part of the justification advanced by the Under-Secretary of State. The responsibilities and loyalties of a Minister to the country that he serves are in every material respect identical to those of a member of the legislature. The fact that in one case the responsibility is Executive, while in the other it is legislative, is utterly immaterial in relation to the principle that is involved

Mr. Hogg: The Oath is precisely the same.

Mr. Howard: Indeed it is.
The only argument that has been advanced in support of the Bill, either explicitly or implicitly, is that it would further the peace process; but it has been acknowledged that nothing in the Good Friday agreement requires this step to be taken. Indeed, it has been forcefully argued that pressing on with the measure in the absence of a consensus for it is itself a breach of the Good Friday

agreement. In any event, it can hardly be argued that those who are most likely to benefit from the legislation—I agree that they are not the only ones—have been so punctilious in their observance of the provisions of the agreement as to justify these further concessions.
Finally, I want to deal briefly with the claim that all that the legislation achieves is the putting of the Republic of Ireland on the same footing as member states of the Commonwealth. I do not regard that as a convincing argument. It is easy to see why in 1957, just a dozen years after the end of the second world war, special provision was made in the House of Commons Disqualification Act of that year for Commonwealth member states. At that time, there was indeed a greater identity of interest between those countries and the United Kingdom than existed between the United Kingdom and almost every other country, or than exists now between the United Kingdom and other countries of the Commonwealth.
I personally greatly value our Commonwealth links and want them to be strengthened, but I believe that, for the reasons of principle that I have given, the Commonwealth exemption from the provisions of the 1957 Act can no longer be justified. It is that exemption that is the anomaly. Far from being extended, as the legislation would provide, it should be removed.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Let me see if I have understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He does not believe that the Commonwealth should have the rights that it had throughout 18 years of Conservative Government, including the period during which he was responsible for these constitutional issues as Home Secretary and did nothing about them. He believes that this is a fundamental matter of principle, but he cannot be bothered to be here this evening to vote against it.

Mr. Howard: The Minister may yet be disappointed in his expectation—it rather depends when the vote takes place. Perhaps he should not take too much comfort from what I said.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I also believe that no one can serve two masters. Is it possible to be elected to this Parliament from any part of the United Kingdom, or from anywhere else, without being on the electoral register within the UK?

Mr. Howard: That question raises different points and considerations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path.
If we in the House are careless of principle, we will forfeit our right to the confidence of our constituents. The Bill is wrong in principle, it is not justified by any worthwhile practical consideration and it should be rejected by the House.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Most of us can unite on one thing: it is bewildering that people could even contemplate having two mandates, but there are plenty of precedents for that. I notice that no one has advanced the view that, as a general principle, the right to two mandates should not exist. Indeed, two hon. Members whom I greatly respect—they are almost universally


respected in the House—the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), have three mandates each. They are supermen. They have seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
Why do I refer to that? It comes back to my intervention. It is for the electorate to decide whether having more than one mandate is appropriate; it is not a matter for us.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Mates: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: I give way to Grantham and then Hampshire.

Mr. Hogg: It is Sleaford and North Hykeham, but no matter.
On disqualification, there are two points. One is time: whether a person has the time to be in two or three places. I agree that that depends on the constituency in question. The other is conflict of interest, which is a matter not for the association or constituency, but for the House.

Mr. Mackinlay: I promise to come to that point because it is important. I am just into my speech and I do not want to detain the House, but I will come to that.

Mr. Mates: I defer to the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is all right for a Member to serve in any number of Assemblies so long as it is all right with the constituents, provided that national conflict of interest does not arise. That is the point that the Minister did not deal with. To be a Member of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly is fine as it is part of the UK. To be a Member also of the European Parliament is fine, too: that is just a supranational assembly. It is when we come to this sovereign Parliament and the one in Dublin that a conflict arises. That is what the Bill allows for, which is wrong in principle.

Mr. Mackinlay: It might surprise the two Members who have intervened on me, but I listen to colleagues' speeches. That was precisely the point that was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I intend to come to that, if they could be patient for a moment. I am speaking without notes, which I know many hon. Members do, as I want to develop a certain thought process.
Having made the point that it is for the people to decide who their Members of Parliament, MEPs, Deputies and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly should be, I want to move to another point—

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: I will for the last time.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to when his Government, his party and, I guess, he himself supported the closed-list approach to the

European elections? In what sense does he think the electorate had a choice in who represented them in those elections?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would have known that, as a democrat, I very much opposed the closed-list system.

Mr. Forth: How did the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Mackinlay: I will have to look it up in Hansard, but, for the record, I think that the system is wrong. It is a big digression from the Bill, but I say unashamedly that the electoral system chosen for the European Parliament was perverse. It was not democratic in the way that I would have liked it to have been when it reached the statute book. I hope that we shall revisit the issue before the next European elections.
The second point that I want to make has not been touched on yet in the debate, but is an underlying theme. It is time that the Irish Republic came back into the Commonwealth. If one paused to think about it, one would realise that, in 1948–49, one reason why the Costello Government left the Commonwealth was that the Commonwealth had not yet accepted, as a general principle, the idea of accepting republics as members.
The irony was that, as the Irish Republic formally left the Commonwealth, almost simultaneously, the first departure from the principle that the United Kingdom monarch should automatically be the head of state of a Commonwealth country occurred with the entry of India, as a republic, to the Commonwealth. As I have already said, an overwhelming majority of Commonwealth countries are republics. Had that been the case in the 1940s, I am sure that the Irish Republic would not have left the Commonwealth.
Legislation in the late 1940s was intended to recognise that there was something very special about Ireland—our close cultural bonds with it, the fact that many citizens of the Irish Republic fought on behalf of the United Kingdom in the second world war and that, in the first world war, many gave gallant service on the western front. In the late 1940s, people were very much alive to those issues, and Parliament's intention was demonstrably to recognise our special historical, cultural and geographical ties with the Republic. Consequently, special provisions were made to give citizens of the Republic voting rights and the right to stand for the United Kingdom Parliament.
I think and hope that, at some stage, the Republic will think about rejoining the Commonwealth. Although I appreciate that it is probably not best for this place to prompt it, I hope that countries such as South Africa, Canada and New Zealand will take the initiative of inviting the Irish Republic back into the Commonwealth. We should also bear in mind—I hope that our debate might be read elsewhere—that it is no longer the British Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth. It is a mutual and shared organisation.
The Irish Republic has a very great tradition and proud record of peacekeeping and humanitarian work, and it would be a natural leading member of the Commonwealth. I hope that, in the coming months, the issue of rejoining will be considered by the Dail and the Government of the Irish Republic.
In earlier interventions, hon. Members raised the issue of members of a legislature who are not loyal to the state in which the legislature of which they are members is located. I ask them to pause and think about the troubled parts of Europe and the representatives of national minorities and communities who are not happy about serving in the geographical jurisdiction of the country in which they are located, but who are none the less prepared to serve in those countries' legislatures. They are not terrorists. Those representatives will also have to accept the terms of their legislatures' oath of office, although it is unlikely that such an oath would be offensive to them.
Surely all hon. Members would encourage those representatives to serve in those legislatures. It is odd that we do not encourage people to serve in our legislatures, even if those people might find unpalatable the constitutional arrangements in which the legislatures operate. If the arguments propounded by the right hon. and learned Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were adopted elsewhere in Europe, it would intensify the unhappy situation in so many European countries.

Mr. Hogg: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and there is some substance to it. However, does he agree that, in many of the countries of Europe, the difficulty of concentrating on loyalty has been recognised and that, very often, the result is much greater devolution and federal constitutions that are designed to deal with the concept of divided loyalty?

Mr. Mackinlay: Yes. However, the situation in the United Kingdom is dynamic, and—although the British isles are not a federation—there have been many recent developments. We should not consider the provisions in isolation. We now have, for example, the Council of the Isles.
In many parts of Europe, there are not adequate federal arrangements. In their speeches, the right hon. and learned Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Folkestone and Hythe and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the point that people might serve in a legislature although all their beliefs run counter to the principle of doing so. I regret that the people who wrote the Minister's brief were not astute on Irish history. Otherwise, Eamon de Valera would have been mentioned, as he was elected to the House of Commons in Northern Ireland after the constitution of the Irish Free State, and was also elected to the Dail. He could have been elected to the British House of Commons until the Costello Government declared the Republic in the late 1940s.
When the Irish Free State was set up in 1922, the Irish Senate had Members of the British Parliament sitting in it. They were Unionists who did not like the creation of the Irish Free State. Admittedly, they were not elected Members of the House of Commons, but they were Members of the House of Lords. They carried on their mandate to sit in the House of Lords in the British Parliament until they died. The Irish peerage carried on until they expired, so there was a dual mandate in reverse. Those people were there because they had resisted the creation of the Irish Free State and because, quite rightly, it was a way of representing Unionist interests in the 26 counties. They did that very well.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is refreshing our memory of history, and I

recognise his point about South Down. However, how long were those people kept in the Irish Senate thereafter? The hon. Gentleman referred to them as dying here. Am I right that the understanding that there would be Unionist representatives in Dail Eireann was not maintained?

Mr. Mackinlay: In those days, it was possible for a Unionist to get elected to Dail Eireann because there was not separate citizenship. I stress that those concerned did serve in the Senate. I regret the impact of the constitutional amendments in the 1930s, which abolished the Irish Senate as set up under legislation in the 1920s. However, the principle was there.
I draw the House's attention to that point in response to the right hon. and learned Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. In fairness, they were unaware that this Parliament had provided for that matter in those circumstances.
A colleague told me not to dwell on the Oath. The Oath does not present difficulties to me personally. However, we should facilitate people in taking their place within a legislature. If they are disbarred solely on a formulation of words that is very important to those who consider the Oath important but not to those who do not, that will contravene the European convention on human rights.
In looking at the tragedy of Ireland and the missed opportunities, one must look at the Oath, which kept the Republican party out of the Dail for 10 to 12 years after the creation of the Free State. That was a great tragedy. How did they overcome it? Those who value the Oath must think that the formulation whereby the problem was overcome was the worst possible scenario. De Valera led his deputies into Dail Eireann after they had been disbarred having consistently refused to take the Oath. Eventually he said, "This is a formula", and signed the register. That was seen as the way round the problem. I happen to know that some hon. Members here have mentally poached that formula when they have signed after our general elections. Openly, some people elected to the Scottish Parliament used the same formulation.
That debases the Oath. An oath should be something with which everyone is comfortable. Perhaps we all do not even need to take the same oath—there could be a degree of choice. For the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to challenge the Minister to say that he will never contemplate a change in the wording of the Oath seems to reinforce some of the great mistakes that were made in the previous century in relation to Ireland. There must be fresh thinking: members of one United Kingdom legislature should not be disbarred from serving because of a formulation of words.
Only exceptional people will want to take advantage of this Bill when it is enacted. However, its presence on the statute book could benefit the United Kingdom and all its people. After all, Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, appointed Dame Lydia Dunn, a member of the Hong Kong legislature, to the House of Lords. That appointment was a recognition of the lady's work, but it was also expeditious for the United Kingdom to send a signal to the people of Hong Kong that they had not been forgotten. The appointment was therefore an important shibboleth and was expedient at the time.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have the greatest admiration for my hon. Friend, but does he accept that the Hong Kong


Executive could not in any way be said to be the sovereign Government of the people of the Republic of China? Although it might have been possible to argue that Hong Kong, as the only democracy in the state of China, could and should have been that sovereign Government, it was not.

Mr. Mackinlay: No, but my point is that it was expedient for the United Kingdom to have that facility on the statute book.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not comparable with the Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. and very good Friend and I will have to disagree. I believe that the two sets of circumstances are parallel. There are good reasons why the same facility should exist for the electorates of Northern Ireland—to whom the Bill primarily relates—and for those of the rest of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When I take constituents on tours of the House, I am often asked about the early days of women's suffrage. One of the bits of history that I tell them as a matter of interest is that the first woman to be elected to this Parliament was a Sinn Fein representative from the St. Patrick's area in Dublin. She never took her seat in the United Kingdom Parliament, but the story disabuses people of the conventional, history-book belief that Lady Astor was the first woman to be elected to this place.
Although this Bill is small in size, it opens a set of big related issues. The Liberal Democrat party is a United Kingdom party, but more in practice a Great Britain party, so it is especially sensitive to the needs of people in Northern Ireland, to whom the Bill has most relevance.

Mr. Maginnis: No.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he may go quite a long way towards agreeing with what I say.
The Bill is about the rights of the people of Ireland—particularly the rights of a small group of those people—in the United Kingdom and its Parliament. Essentially, it is about the rights of representation, in the United Kingdom Parliament and other UK Assemblies, of representatives elected to the Parliament of Ireland. This is something of a paradox.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.

Mr. Swayne: What the hon. Gentleman says applies the other way around, too.

Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that in a second.
The question of reciprocity arises from the basic proposition.

Mr. Forth: Yes, that is a big issue.

Mr. Hughes: The Bill rests on two narrow proposals. Liberal Democrat Members support the Bill's Second Reading, as do the Conservatives, but we are worried about how the Government have introduced it to Parliament. The approach adopted by the Government does not seem to be the most appropriate.
The relationship that the United Kingdom has with Ireland is different from any other that it has. It is not the same as our relationship with Commonwealth countries, any other European Union country or any other country—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there are far too many sedentary comments in the House this afternoon, and they do not assist the debate.

Mr. Hughes: It is noteworthy that, in our legislation, Ireland is not categorised as an alien country. That is because of our strong historical connections. As we see whenever we are in Central Lobby, Ireland is one country within the United Kingdom until the independence of Ireland; it then became a Republic after the war, at the end of the 1940s. The relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland is unique, and legislation that affects it will, and should, be considered separately from legislation in relation to every other country.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman said that Ireland's position is to do with our long historic relationship. In a sense, that is right, but it is also a result of Acts of this Parliament. That is the point.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right: the historical relationship has resulted in particular Acts of Parliament that have governed our relationship.
The Government have chosen—that is why I asked the Minister the question—to come to the House with a proposal that is specific to the United Kingdom-Irish relationship. I want to make a few comments on that, although I shall shortly be discussing the fact that we have missed an opportunity. There is a wider set of issues to do not just with disqualification from being elected to Parliament, but with the links between Members of Parliament and other Assemblies—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) rightly called them subordinate Assemblies—including the European Parliament, which is not a full sovereign Parliament in that sense of the word. In addition, dual mandates and conflicts of interest have not been addressed. It is also a pity to have this debate before having the even wider debate, which is particularly topical given last week's report by the Wakeham commission on the House of Lords, and the opportunities that that presents.
Let me deal first with the Bill and the two narrow points that it contains. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is no longer in her place, that if we accept that the Bill presents to our Parliament an issue on the rights of the Irish people and people elected to the Irish Parliament—the Senate and


the Dail—it is wrong to tie the Bill to issues of decommissioning, however much we share the view expressed most frequently by Members on the Ulster Unionist and the other Northern Ireland Benches that we desperately want decommissioning to take place and to be seen to be taking place. I advanced that case in a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only last week. The rights of citizens should not depend on other processes that will be arbitrated on by an independent body. It muddies the water to link those issues.
Although the Minister did not say it directly, the obvious conclusion is that the Bill arises from discussions after the Good Friday agreement. The point must have been raised—perhaps someone in the Government said it to someone in the Irish Government, or vice versa, or perhaps it came from the Northern Ireland Office—about correcting this one constitutional anomaly, and the Government must have decided to legislate.
It would have taken some of the heat out of the issue if the Bill had awaited the conclusion of the commission in Ireland, which is inquiring into the composition of the Irish Parliament. I gather, from prior knowledge and from the Library's briefing note, that it is due to report early this year.
It would have been logical, and would have been good as cement for relations in the UK-Irish axis, for there to have been simultaneous consideration—as simultaneous as it can ever be—in this Parliament and the Irish Parliament of proposals that might have ensured that there were no anomalies. We should have preferred that and we regret that it has not happened.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will on this occasion, but I do not want to do so too often. I have not forgotten my promise to give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he made a highly pertinent point. Does he agree that, despite the Government's disavowal of a linkage between the Bill and the process of decommissioning, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that they are fervently hoping that the passage of the Bill—to which some Members object—will itself facilitate the decommissioning for which we all hope?

Mr. Hughes: I am sure that there is a hope that the Bill will act as a bit of an encouragement to—let us be direct—Sinn Fein to be more co-operative. That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. However, we should not legislate to change constitutional arrangements by considering only the foreground, without thinking about the hinterland. The Bill has a hinterland—of Irish and United Kingdom constitutional change and of UK constitutional reform—and our criticism is that both should have been considered before we reached this stage.
I have no inside information, but I take it as read that the Bill would not have been presented, had the Irish Parliament not changed the Irish constitution to remove Ireland's claim to the six counties.

Mr. Mackinlay: That was in the 1948 legislation.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed. The legislation dated from the 1940s. The Government would not have been able to

sustain the proposition in the measure if the right remained for people in the Irish Senate and the Dail to make a claim for the six counties. I assume that that change was a precondition. The matter shows the link between the constitutional settlements in each country, which is why we think that the wider issues should have been considered.
I have some further constitutional points to make. The first is that the measure raises an issue that is relevant to all constitutional debate, and was referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Whatever we think about the dual mandate—a live issue on which we should hold a debate, because although electors can choose, we may want to reconsider the matter in the light of the number of opportunities that there are to do so—the Bill raises a separate issue, which has rightly been described as the conflict of interests.
For example, if a citizen of Ireland represents Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Assembly or, more important, in the UK Parliament, but also represents in the Irish Parliament another place in Ireland from which he or she comes, there may be times when there is a conflict of interest. The two parties, the groupings or the two legislatures to which that person would belong would be institutions of different sovereign countries and they could take different positions. That cannot be avoided. To say that there will not be a conflict of interests seems to be a naive denial of reality. Of course, people would have views on which they stood for election and would take those views into each Parliament, but there is bound to be—between each forum—some conflict of interest.
In the light of that point, it is right that the Bill includes a provision that one cannot serve as a Minister in both Irish and Northern Ireland Governments—that goes at least half way. The logic is that people would probably realise that they also should not serve as any sort of Minister in either country's national Government—in any of its Assemblies or Parliaments—but that point should also be provided for in the measure.
The second issue is whether—

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which has not escaped the notice of Ulster Unionist Members. During the Falklands war, there were very different opinions in the House and the Dail. What would happen to a Member who was sitting in both places in such circumstances?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question. Logically, the same person would express the same view in both places—

Mr. Bercow: Not if he is a Liberal.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is sometimes astute, but that remark is neither astute nor helpful in a debate such as this. I am always willing to defend the Liberal Democrats, but this is a debate about serious matters, and party political sniping is not appropriate.
Logically, the same person would adopt the same position in both legislatures, but it is true that a person cannot possibly serve in two Administrations with differing views where, by definition, that person will be one among many.

Mr. Mates: The logic of that is that the Bill should be amended now, so that, if one takes office in either sovereign Parliament, one is disqualified even from membership of the other one.

Mr. Hughes: I would go along with the hon. Gentleman that far: we should have been given a proposition that holding office in government, in either Ireland or the United Kingdom, disqualifies a person from holding office in the other Government at the same time. We could debate whether it is proper to be in both legislatures and a member of the Administration in one. I believe that it could be justified, because the conflict of interests is less. I have just flagged that up. I have gone a long way with the hon. Gentleman. By definition, different interests are served by the Parliament of Ireland and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Let us not be dishonest when we legislate in this way.
That leads me to my last constitutional points. It would have been better if we had approached the issue by considering whether, in 1999, when the Bill was introduced, or 2000, when it is being debated by Parliament, it is still sensible to argue that someone who is a member of one sovereign country's legislature should be allowed to be a member of another sovereign country's legislature. I am the most ardent fan of the Commonwealth, but it seems to me that it is perfectly proper for Commonwealth heads of government to hold a debate at their conference on whether it is reasonable for people to be entitled to be in two legislatures at once. I do not believe that it is. It is no longer logical, even if it was; I know that it dates back several decades.
Another question that cries out for ministerial consideration—which is why I raised the question with the Minister—is whether it is logical for there to be no residence requirements to stand for election to a legislature, even though there are such requirements to vote. Under the Bill, as under existing law, a Commonwealth legislative member and a Member of the Senate of Ireland can stand for election, in the first case to the United Kingdom Parliament and in the second case to the Northern Ireland Assembly, without having a residential qualification in the United Kingdom. We should address that question. I believe that most of us, and most of the electorate, would say that, whatever one's citizenship and nationality, residency should be a precondition for standing for the Parliament of a sovereign country.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: When we consider the issue of people representing electorates in different sovereign countries, presumably the key question is, would there be a conflict of loyalty between supporting the rights of one set of electors and supporting those of another set of electors? To take an example, although not on all fours with this, a former right hon. Member of the House, Sir David Steel, sought to represent a French constituency—[Interruption.]—an Italian constituency, in

a different sovereign country, representing electors in that country, yet also sought to represent persons in Scotland. How does the hon. Gentleman resolve that issue?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give the Minister the answer, but it raises another constitutional question. Elections to the European Parliament are fought by parties that operate across the European Union. I remember the debates, and Lord Steel wanted to show that he was standing not for an Italian party, but for a European-wide party that represented the Liberal view across Europe. The Minister may or may not agree with the decision, but that was the reason. The question of whether and in what circumstances citizens of one country should be able to stand for the sovereign legislature of another should be considered. I exempt the European Parliament from that consideration, because it is not a sovereign legislature in the same sense as the Dail or the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, because the hon. Gentleman has been rude. Therefore, he does not deserve an intervention.
It is right for the Bill to correct the anomaly of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which gave Members of the Irish Senate, but not Members of the Dail, the right to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although I know that each group is elected differently and has a different role and composition, it is proper for the Bill to remove that anomaly.
Whatever the merit of its two individual proposals, the Bill is sadly the latest example of the Government not thinking constitutional reform through wholesale, but coming at it piecemeal. They legislated for a Scottish Parliament and we welcomed that. However, that was done separately from the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government then legislated for London government, and they may or may not legislate for regional government in England. They think about electoral reform for the House of Commons, but they do not think at the same time about what they will do for the Lords, and when they think about what to do with the Lords, they do not consider how it relates to the House of Commons. The whole thing is a muddle. Although people sometimes criticise Liberal Democrats for having an over-excessive interest in constitutional reform, we can never be criticised for not having at least thought through a coherent package.

Sir Patrick Cormack: They are generally wrong.

Mr. Hughes: Whatever colleagues think about our conclusions, we at least have a coherent view of the whole. For example, we have long argued that the existence of a Scottish Parliament means that there should be fewer Members from Scotland in the House. That view is taken by my Scottish colleagues, as well as by the others. However, the Government have not thought things through and that is why they are in difficulty today.
The Oath was mentioned. Although this Bill is not about the Oath, it is wrong to think that an oath issue does not exist. However, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald should recognise that some Members of the House, who are not from Northern Ireland, take the


view—it is not a party view—that reform of the constitution should involve a reconsideration of the Oath. For example, we might change the Oath so that it is one of allegiance to the country, the constitution and the rights of our citizens and not to the person of the monarch, however much we respect her or her successors.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Bradlaugh point.

Mr. Hughes: This is, indeed, the Bradlaugh point. No matter what part of the United Kingdom they come from, republicans may stand for and be elected to Parliament. If the electors want them here, they should be able to attend and should not be precluded from taking their places because they cannot take an oath.
We shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading because it is clearly right to correct the anomalies on two narrow points. We must resolve the discrepancy between Members of the Senate and the Dail and properly consider the issue of the United Kingdom's special relationship with Ireland. We have reciprocal voting rights and, by tradition, Members from Ireland and the Commonwealth have had certain rights in some of our legislatures. This correction must be taken forward. However, we regret that the Bill was not introduced more in parallel with the proposals of the Government of Ireland and with greater constitutional thought about disqualification, the arrangements for the United Kingdom Parliament and its subsidiary Parliaments and Assemblies and the better governance of all the Parliaments in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for he made a very interesting speech. Indeed, he made a number of interesting points last week on the Representation of the People Bill. However, if he gets round to writing anything into the Oath about the constitution, he will find that not only Irish nationalists but Scottish and Welsh nationalists will not sign up to it. He better get that through his head before he goes down that dangerous road.
The Minister was asked to whom the Government talked, but we did not get many sensible words out of him or any hard information in reply. He cannot rely on the matter being forgotten on Report. Given what has been said so far on both sides of the House, it is foolish and quite wrong to go ahead with the Bill's remaining stages tomorrow. Comments have already shown how much is hidden in this tiny Bill. People need more time to consider it, what has been said and what amendments should be tabled. The more that folk in this House look at the Bill, the more questions will be actively raised in their heads.
The Minister said that, as a result of the Bill, persons could be elected to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Be that as it may, there is nothing, so far as I can see—he was not able to answer the point when I put it to him—that will bar persons from the Irish Republic who are elected to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly from assuming ministerial posts in such bodies. I do not think that the Scots and the Welsh would be very happy about that. Perhaps he has made a mistake and it is not possible for such people to stand for those institutions. I have no doubt that that issue will be explored tomorrow.
It has become perfectly clear to me as the debate has developed that the Bill is not the product of long and careful thought. It is nothing more than a hasty cobbling together—a product more or less out of the blue. We are therefore entitled to ask serious questions about why it has been introduced at this stage and in such a form. Its implications have not been thought through.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an excellent speech, raising the sort of questions that the late Enoch Powell used to raise. We shall hear much more of that because such questions underlie an awful lot of what this nation is and how we perceive ourselves and our place in the world.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has left the Chamber, talked about the interim arrangements that were made for Unionist representation in the Dail Eireann. He did not seem to be aware that it was possible at that time for a Unionist to get elected in a number of areas in the border counties, and even in Dublin—not under the Unionist name, although everybody in the Irish Republic knew who such candidates were. Through border changes and the redrawing of boundaries, Unionists or anyone of that political complexion were very soon prevented from being elected. I think that the last place to fall was Donegal. In fact, the last Protestant councillor in Donegal had his electorate cut in half by the last boundary change. So, if the hon. Gentleman expects good will just because of pious hopes expressed in this House, he had better think again.
The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the fact that people could be elected to the Dail, yet that is plainly an empty symbol. There are enough people of nationalist Irish descent, or who were born in the Irish Republic but live on this side of the Irish sea, to elect a member of Dail Eireann to this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, there is not a snowball's chance of any Member of Parliament, other than a well-known Irish nationalist or Irish republican, ever being elected to the Dail.

Mr. Hogg: Is there not a legal impediment as well? My understanding is that it is a condition of being elected to the Dail that the person in question is an Irish citizen.

Mr. Ross: There is that legal impediment, but one need only look at its football team to see how widely the definition of a citizen of the Republic of Ireland can be spread.

Mr. Hogg: Does that not include me?

Mr. Ross: No, it would not include the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is a generation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) must not make his arguments from a sedentary position.

Mr. Ross: I repent in sackcloth and ashes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been carried away by an interesting side issue.
In many ways, this House of representatives of the people of the United Kingdom is the very heart and soul of the nation. As such, its duty is to preserve the national interest and to provide for the welfare of all its citizens.


That welfare is not merely economic; it extends both to the freedoms that all want to enjoy and to the responsibilities that many do not want to acknowledge but that we as citizens accept and enjoy. All nations have a unique perception of themselves and of the values that are commonly accepted by the citizens of the state as underpinning our entire attitude to life.
Although we can understand the desires and hopes of the people of other nations, we in this House are in no way bound to accept or promote their vision of the world, especially when it impinges on our economic and constitutional interests. In other words, our objective must be to ensure that the Queen's writ runs, that the Queen's law is observed and that the Queen's peace is kept throughout the United Kingdom. That is a large part of what it means to be a citizen of the United Kingdom.
That means that, at the end of the day, Members of Parliament have to decide whether they serve the people and interests of the United Kingdom or whether they have another vision that serves the people and interests of another state. Attempting to serve both will result in the exclusion of at least some constituents, not in all being served comprehensively and wholeheartedly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In the spirit of inquiry, may I ask whether I am right in assuming that one who enters the Dail has to take an oath—that there is some declaration or requirement that means that election in Ireland carries certain obligations, just as the Oath taken by representatives in this country entails some obligation?

Mr. Ross: I shall address that point later in another context. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that any Minister in the Dail and the President of the Republic of Ireland must take an oath to uphold the constitution of that state. That is their first duty. If a person who had taken that oath were to be asked to serve in another legislature, there would be an immediate and deep conflict of interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, it is not possible for a man to serve two masters, for, as the good book puts it, either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other. That was true 2000 years ago, when the words were first uttered, and it is true today in terms of national loyalties.
We have recognised that some nations and their nationals have, as it were, a family relationship with us in a shared history and a shared view of some or all of our constitutional standards and of our legal framework, which we gave to countries that were outwith the old British or Anglo-European context. That relationship still subsists via the Commonwealth, so Commonwealth citizens can be elected to this place. That privilege has been extended to citizens of the Irish Republic despite the fact that it decided of its own volition to part from this nation and follow another course.
It is clear beyond any doubt that when committed Irish nationalists decided to take their place in a United Kingdom legislature, they did not do so on the same basis as I did. One of them, whose name has already been mentioned, has reached a position of some prominence in the Irish Republic. When asked about taking the Oath when he was a member of the Stormont Parliament, he

replied that he had taken the Oath with a mental reservation. That reservation was not spelled out but his response could mean only that he had uttered the words of the Oath without the slightest intention of abiding by their plain meaning. He was prepared to work to a different agenda from that implied by the commitment that the Oath contained.
Hitherto, the Sinn Fein-IRA organisation has flatly refused even to follow that course of action in regard to United Kingdom institutions, with the exception of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its members will not take the Oath or make the affirmation in this place. They stand outside but still claim, perhaps for financial reasons or to rub the House's nose in it, the benefits that flow from being elected here, without accepting any of the responsibilities that attach to the position that they occupy.
These people have entered the Northern Ireland Assembly. They have said that they can abide by the wording of that Oath and that they can justify their position. I believe that they do that as a means to an end. Hence their insistence that the Belfast agreement is not the final settlement but only a means to their final objective. I assume that they are even more comfortable with the undertaking that is required in the Dail, given that they now sit in that legislature as well.
It is against that background that the Bill must be viewed. In it, we are opening the way to those who sit in the governing legislature of an avowedly foreign and different state also to sit in our legislature and to legislate for the people of the United Kingdom. The Minister's position is very different. However, what applies to the Minister applies to the newest Back-Bench Member as well. Back Benchers also legislate by their support for or opposition to a legislature. Therefore, the conflict of interest, which is real and deep, remains. It cannot be avoided.
Until recently, the Irish Republic claimed the territory of Northern Ireland, a part of this kingdom. Its High Court said that that objective was a constitutional imperative. I am referring to the outcome of the McGimpsey case. I cannot say what the recent changes have done to that court's ruling in that instance. However, it is plain to me that the territorial claim has been superseded by a claim to rule over people.
As I have already said, in addition the Bill will allow Members of the Dail, if elected, to rule over the citizens of Northern Ireland. Does anyone think that in such circumstances they will do anything other than pursue their objective of a united Ireland? One of the parties whose members will be able to take advantage of a dual mandate will be Sinn Fein-IRA. It is plain that these people have not the slightest intention of becoming a normal political party. They cling to their weapons and to their military wing like a clam to a rock. There is no display of good faith. The Government are introducing the Bill because they see it as another inducement to the IRA to become democrats and abandon violence. That is the real reason for it. Anything else that has been said amounts to a thin smokescreen.
The idea of changing the rules relating to the facilities of the House for the two Sinn Fein persons elected falls into the same category. The change in regard to the Irish Senate and Members of it was made purely and simply for the benefit of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
I am not clear about whether a candidate for the House of Commons has to be on the electoral register here. We are told that one can sit in the legislature of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and heaven knows where and be a Member of Parliament here. However, when we find how far a legislator from one of those countries would have to travel home for the weekend, the physical obstacles render it impossible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety in both an intervention and his speech about a residential qualification for standing for the House. There is no residential qualification, but hon. Members must be United Kingdom, Commonwealth or Irish citizens, or have been born here.

Mr. Ross: Members do not even have to be electors here. That point was made earlier. I am not sure whether their sponsors have to be electors—

Mr. Howarth: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: The Minister indicates that the sponsors have to be electors, but not the candidates, who can come from anywhere. That is somewhat daft.
A litany of similar great and small concessions have been made to the IRA in recent weeks, to try to persuade it to divest itself of its weaponry and become a normal political party. Such actions are to no avail, because the IRA's overriding imperative is to dismember the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maginnis: The Government provide a disincentive.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's actions convince us that no matter what the IRA says or does, its demands will be met and it will have to pay nothing in return.
The Belfast agreement was supposed to bury old arguments about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. I never believed that that would happen. However, those who believed that will find that the Bill will reignite the flames. No Government have been behind in their willingness to listen to and act upon the opinions of the IRA and its fellow travellers, but the current Government, more than most, have been willing to listen to those whose views are congenial to them. I have been a Member of Parliament since February 1974, and have witnessed a consistent refusal to listen to voices that proclaim a different message. Given that the consequences have so often proved those voices correct, why do the Government refuse to learn?
When hard questions were asked last week—including one by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not a member of my party—they were not answered. Instead of a reasoned reply, he received an attempt at abuse. That is not good enough. What will happen when the current raft of concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA have been pocketed? What will be the next step? It will not be giving up weapons or acceptance of United Kingdom institutions, but further demands, which will be backed by the unspoken threat of violence. Having paid danegeld for so many years, and having strengthened the IRA's power and influence by their previous actions,

the Government are perceived as the softest of soft touches. One cannot get rid of violence by encouraging it. It is time that not only the Government but all parties in the House learned that.
The Bill is a foolish little measure, from which evil consequences will flow. It should be rejected, and I shall vote against it this evening.

Mr. Michael Mates: My remarks will be much shorter than intended because, in a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), made many of the points that I wanted to make, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I shall not repeat them, or dance any longer on the head of the constitutional pin around which we have been revolving. However, when I intervened in the Minister's speech, he did not answer my question about acknowledging the difference between a sovereign and a subordinate Parliament.
I have no difficulty with the concept that one can sit in the Irish Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly. If one can do that, one should also be allowed to sit in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The inability to do so is an obvious anomaly, which should be put right. That is a different proposition from having a seat in a sovereign Parliament with one set of allegiances, one set of priorities and one constitution and having a seat in another that has demonstrably different ones. That is the point.
The Minister said that all the United Kingdom Parliaments and Assemblies were to be treated the same. With respect, they are not the same. There is one sovereign Parliament in the United Kingdom, and it is not in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast—it is here. That is a fundamental difference and a fundamental change that the Government are seeking to make in the Bill. In a Second Reading debate one has to ask oneself, "Why this Bill now?" Have there been demands for it from the House? None that I have heard. Have there been demands from Dublin? Not that I have heard. Have there been demands from our Unionist friends? Not that we have heard. The demands have come from one source, and one source only: Sinn Fein. It has asked that that change be made and been granted the concession. It was not in the Good Friday agreement and not offered, but asked for.
Why has Sinn Fein done this? It has had all the concessions that were in the Good Friday agreement. We have already acted not only to the letter of that agreement, but in the spirit of it. We have given way again and again and again, but still Sinn Fein asks for more because it has a card that it steadfastly refuses to play—the decommissioning card. I would not want the Bill to be linked to decommissioning because that would not make any sense. It is either right or not right to make the change. My view is that it is not right and that it should not be a condition, but that is another matter and no doubt I shall find myself in a minority. The concession should not have been offered until Sinn Fein had shown itself ready to sit in either Parliament, never mind both. That is what has gone wrong.
I acknowledge that current Home Office and Northern Ireland Office Ministers were not in their jobs when the process started; they leapt on to a moving train. Two years


ago the view was, "Let's get on with it. Let's give them everything they want so that if it goes wrong we cannot be held to blame." I can understand that, although I do not agree with it, but there should have come a time at which someone said, "Hang on. We have taken part in what they call demilitarisation and we call reduction, taken three battalions of troops out of the place and cut patrolling by two thirds, all within the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. We have done more. We have closed down Castlereagh and demolished the security institutions, but not one response has come from them—just more demands." Surely we in the House, above all places, have learned that meeting demands from such people simply feeds their desire to increase those demands.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's argument is based on the premise that those who will benefit from the change are exclusively members of Sinn Fein. I made it clear in my opening speech that others—perhaps some in the nationalist community and others, and I identified some—who are not members of Sinn Fein have already said that they might want to have a standing in the Irish Republic and perhaps also in Northern Ireland. He has not dealt with that point.

Mr. Mates: I thought that I had dealt with that at the beginning of my speech by saying that I have no objection whatever to any interrelationship between the Northern Ireland Assembly and any part of the Irish Government—be it the Oireachtas, local government or anything else—but I have a principled objection to a person sitting in two sovereign Parliaments.

Mr. William Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow people from the Irish Republic to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, is he equally prepared to allow them to sit in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Mates: That is an interesting point, which involves the lesson about legislating in haste. I imagine that the Home Office is beavering away hard to try to put that right before tomorrow, when the Bill is in Committee. It appears that that is not allowed. If so, that goes against what the Under-Secretary says. However, I do not want to follow that point.
The point that I want to make, which is why it is offensive for the Government to have brought forward the Bill at this time, regardless of its principles, is that it is there at the demand of two individuals who have been elected to the House—the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—but who clearly have no allegiance to this place or its institutions, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty the Queen to whom they refuse to swear an Oath. They have said all along, so I am not libelling them by saying this, that they wanted this part of the United Kingdom destroyed; they wanted themselves taken out of it—aspirations, yes, but aspirations backed by force, no. They are the people who still decline to remove the one obstacle to a proper democratic process—the decommissioning of arms. They are now trying to wash their hands of it. They say that they do not belong

to the IRA. What I want to know is when they left. They never told us that. I have tried to persuade journalists to ask them the question, but they seem reluctant to do so because they want to obtain more interviews.
We are talking about two leaders of a political party in Northern Ireland who have been elected to the House who owe loyalty to neither the House nor the country, and who now want to retain their membership of the House and to have membership of another sovereign Parliament to which they would owe some form of allegiance, although I imagine that the Irish Government are not entirely happy about having Sinn Fein infiltration from wherever it comes. The Government are doing this, and this is the perverse part, not because a majority of the people in Northern Ireland want this to happen, not even because the minority want it to happen—Sinn Fein represents a minority of the minority community, 15 per cent., yet all their demands are being met—so that the killing stops.
When the Minister replies will he say why—I ask with tongue slightly in cheek—he has not put 1p on income tax and devoted that to education? That is what a minority of 15 per cent. in Britain voted for at the last election. The Liberal Democrat's policy was to put 1p on tax for education. Have the Government done that? Of course not. A minority asked for it and that is not the way in which one governs in a democracy. But everything that this minority has asked for has been given to it on the basis that perhaps it will stop the killing, and it has it in its power to do so. I would only say, as I have said to the Government before, that the more they appease these people the greater will be their demands. At some stage the Government will have to stop the appeasement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If the House be divided, I shall vote against the Bill because it is wrong in principle. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and others have identified the inevitability of there being a conflict of interest. The Bill entrenches that dilemma in legislation and is flawed on that basis alone.
When hon. Members come to this House they take an Oath. I, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would be willing to see the Oath changed because it does not accurately express our duties. The duties of a Member of Parliament include a duty to one's conscience, to God if one be Christian, and to one's country. It may be that to focus on the person of the monarch is a way of expressing that to some hon. Members, and I am content with that. But I recognise that for many hon. Members the Oath does not accurately reflect their sense of obligation, and that strains the language. If one has an Oath which inevitably strains the language, one tends to deprive it of its meaning. I should therefore like to see the Oath changed.
Whatever the form of the Oath, the substance is the same—namely, that our obligation is to our country, our conscience, God and our constituents. The plain fact is that if one represents a constituency in another country as well as a constituency in this country, one has a divided loyalty and cannot properly fulfil one's obligations to both. That is a conclusive argument.
I am well aware—the Minister made the point fairly—that there is a precedent: the legislatures of the Commonwealth. I suspect that the reasons for that exemption are entirely historical. Were we to start again, we would not give such an exemption. In truth, those countries frequently have interests which are diverse from our own. One merely has to think of the agriculture of Australia and New Zealand to see that, or their differing defence concepts, or, in the case of the Caribbean countries, trade, debt and aid. If one wants to be more precise, one thinks in terms of the Indian subcontinent and Kashmir, where there is a clear difference between, for example, the attitudes of the peoples of India and our own. So it is difficult, even within the Commonwealth, for people to serve two masters if they are members of a legislature.
That can be tested in another way. What if we were to propose that members of the EU legislatures were to be Members of the House. I would not be described as a Europhobe, but it would be bizarre if a member of the French, German or Spanish Parliaments was also a member of this Parliament. In the case of Spain, there is the disagreement over Gibraltar. In the case of Germany and France there are serious differences of opinion on agriculture, enlargement, monetary union and the concept of the EU. In the case of Italy, there is the difference of opinion on structural funds. It would be impossible for a member of one of those Parliaments faithfully and properly to discharge his or her obligations to the domestic legislature and to this one.

Mr. Mackinlay: I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the difference between members of EU parliamentary legislatures being elected to this House and members of Dail Eireann also being Members of the House if Commons is that the first scenario just will not happen because it is inconceivable that anyone could be so elected, while the second is highly probable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very fair and he has said some sensible things about the Oath, but if constituents desire to sit in both places, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider perverse, that is nevertheless their desire, and that should be paramount.

Mr. Hogg: I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman, but not entirely. A number of objections can be raised in the context of a conflict of interest, which are properly left to the constituency or to the association—for example, whether an individual Member of Parliament will have sufficient time fully to perform the functions of a Member in this House and somewhere else as well. But a different point arises when one comes to matters of principle, because that is something on which this House should decide.
The hon. Gentleman made the perfectly fair point that, while it may be likely that persons from Ireland would wish to be Members of this House, it is unlikely that people from countries far away would wish to be so, for practical reasons—

Mr. Mackinlay: Or to be elected.

Mr. Hogg: Or to be elected. But we run the risk of creating a precedent. In the course of this debate we have referred to precedent. The Minister will forgive me,

but the only argument that he has really advanced is one of precedent—the Commonwealth countries. But if we pass the Bill, we shall create a new precedent, and it is one that EU countries will be able to assert against us. If we say of Irish citizens that they are entitled to be a Member of both Houses, how can we in conscience deny that to members of the French Parliament, or wherever? There is no distinction of principle. We are creating a precedent that is capable of further extension.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is any difference in principle between representing two constituencies in different Parliaments and representing two constituencies in the same Parliament?

Mr. Hogg: That thought had not occurred to me: my hon. Friend is ingenious. It is difficult to draw a distinction, but I should like to reflect on the point further before being asked to give a conclusive view.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about someone representing two constituencies. The practical and most immediate issue is someone standing in the same place for the legislatures of two countries, so as to represent a part of Northern Ireland in this Parliament and in the Irish Parliament. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his views on that, because it is the central issue addressed by the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: I shall decline that invitation, but I will go back to my hon. Friend's question. There is a difference between the scenarios that he outlined. It would be offensive for a Member of Parliament to represent two constituencies in one country.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is not allowed.

Mr. Hogg: I know that it is not allowed, but it would be offensive. We are talking about principle, not law. It would be difficult to do, but I wonder how offensive it would be, because there would not be a conflict of loyalty to the state. There would be a conflict of loyalty as between constituents, but the obligation to the state would be the same. If that MP represented two constituencies in different countries, he would have a conflict of loyalty as between the states.
With Ireland—as with every other country, whether in the Commonwealth, the European Union or elsewhere—we have major differences of policy objective. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe reminded us, serious constitutional and defence issues have separated us and Ireland in the past. Let us hope that they do not occur again in the future, but we cannot exclude that possibility. However, there are still differences: Ireland has special interests on agriculture and fishery policy, and it is committed to the single currency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not turn away from the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All those differences of interest are on matters of some importance. There is a difference of attitude between the Government, the Parliament and the people of Ireland and ourselves, and we should keep that in mind.
I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. I asked myself—and, indeed, him—what the motive behind the Bill was, and I could not identify it. I am sure that it has to do with the wishes of Sinn Fein. I suspect that it has to do with the wishes of Sinn Fein to build up a representation both in the Dail and in Westminster.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), I do not think the time is right—it may never be right—for us to accommodate the wishes of Sinn Fein. If it were fully involved in decommissioning, and if we could be certain of a settled peace in Northern Ireland, one might be willing to consider the matter further, but now is not the time. I have heard no arguments from the Minister as to why we should consider this matter today and urgently again tomorrow.
In the end, we are dealing with a matter of principle, and I think the principle is conclusive. I hope that the House will divide on this matter, and I shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am more than usually pleased to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) because, as in so many areas, I agree with him completely. I shall join him in the Lobby if I have the opportunity to vote against the Bill.
The Bill has already been described as offensive and dangerous. I agree with both descriptions. I want to follow the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but in a slightly different way, and expand it.
To my mind, the Bill is, as much as anything, about the concept of nationhood, which many people feel is old-fashioned and even redundant, and to which the Government pay increasingly scant regard. However, the Bill, small and limited in scope though it may be, makes an important statement about nationhood and its irrelevance, and we would be irresponsible to ignore that.
In a democratic political system, surely the legislature, the process of election to that legislature and the people who have the honour to serve in it are as much a statement of nationhood, national identity and loyalty as anything else. Hon. Members need not believe me about that: they merely have to ask the Irish. The Irish have the good sense to have written into their law the requirement that to be a Member of their legislature one has to be an Irish citizen. That strikes me as admirable, sensible, correct and reasonable.
We are saying—it has been said many times in the debate and is partly a result of history—that membership of this national legislature should be open to different people, many of whom have no loyalty to or identity with this country of ours. That is a serious decision for us to make, and it is one of the decisions that we are being asked to make in the Bill. That is why I oppose it.
I agree with the Irish. They are right and entitled to say that, as a matter of national identity, only their citizens should serve in their legislature. I believe that the same

should apply to our legislature, because I value our national identity and nationhood and believe that it is of great importance. We are talking here about no less than an absolute principle.
Then we have the matter of the conflict of loyalty. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the issue of whether it is likely or possible that someone could serve at one and the same time in the legislatures of two separate sovereign nations, such as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. That is a matter of belief, experience and observation. I want to say a few words about my own observations.
I am in the slightly unusual position of having had the honour to serve in the European Parliament, when I had the opportunity to work alongside Irish MEPs. I was also for many years a member of the Council of Ministers of the European Union, when I was able to observe members of the Irish Government and their attitude to matters European and to the United Kingdom. I was also able to observe at fairly close quarters—closer than I would have liked—Irish Commissioners discharging their duties in the European Union, particularly with regard to the United Kingdom. I rarely saw much identity of interest or loyalty on the part of Irish citizens—be they MEPs, members of the Council of Ministers, or Irish Commissioners—with regard to the United Kingdom. I venture to say that I consistently saw the opposite.
I have no complaint about that. Irish politicians, be they elected to the European Parliament, Ministers in the Council of Ministers or Commissioners for the time being, have the right to represent the loyalties that are important to them.

Mr. Hogg: And the duty.

Mr. Forth: And the duty, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. I admire and respect that, but let no one tell me that there would not be serious conflicts of loyalty and interest were those Irish politicians ever to be allowed to come to this legislature. It is in the nature of things that different countries and nations have, from time to time, different interests that give rise to conflicting loyalties. That is the way the world has developed.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be careful when drawing distinctions such as this. I had an honoured father-in-law who served in the British Army in the first world war, who was trained by British citizens as a doctor, and who lived in London throughout his career as an Irish citizen. There was no doubt about his loyalty to the people whom he served, or about the idea that he would give up any understanding of his Irish status. There is a strong distinction to be drawn; however, it should be drawn not between Irish citizenship and the commitment of Irish citizens to the places where they live and work, but between Irish citizenship and being elected to this place.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady is of course right.
I speak as I find, and I deliberately said at the outset that these were the results of my own experience, over the past 20 years or so, of working in close proximity with Irish politicians in very different political contexts. My experience leads me to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that such people would find it difficult to


reconcile their natural and, in many ways, admirable loyalty to their Irish connections with any connections that they might have in the United Kingdom, were the Bill—wrongly, in my view—to be become law.
Let me add in passing that the same might well be said to apply to many, if not most, Commonwealth countries. When I had the honour to visit Australia recently, I was able to hear some of its debate about the possibility of a republic there. It is obvious, and very natural, that Commonwealth countries, in their maturity, see the world in a very different way from how they might have seen it when the Commonwealth was at its strongest, 50 or more years ago.
The other matter that has been mentioned—although not as often as might have been expected in a debate such as this—is reciprocity. As I have said, I oppose the Bill in principle, but it could just possibly be argued that the case might be advanced if various nations—sovereign states—agreed that there should be a reciprocal arrangement whereby people elected to one Parliament could simultaneously be elected to another. Some people might well accept that, although I would not. Yet again, however—as has emerged during the debate—our Irish friends have had the good sense not to offer reciprocity.
This is a one-way process. What we are expected to do—expected by the Government to do—is agree to make an enormous concession, in allowing the possibility that people from another country, with very different interests, will be able to serve in our legislature, while no reciprocal arrangement exists for us to serve in the Irish legislature. I think that on this occasion the Irish have got it right, and the Government have got it completely wrong. We find ourselves in a bizarre position: it appears that another Government—the Government of another country—see this legislature much more clearly than do our own Government. I consider that unacceptable.

Mr. Bercow: Would it not have been considerate and, arguably, helpful to our deliberations if the Government had given some indication this afternoon that they had vigorously and consistently, over a period, pressed the Irish Government to offer reciprocity? Should we not take it that, as the Government have given no such indication, there has been no such pressure?

Mr. Forth: I think that the murkiest aspect of today's debate has been the Government's motivation. Time and again, Members have pressed Ministers on why they have presented the Bill to us now; but, having sat through the entire debate, I have heard no satisfactory answer. It is most peculiar that a Government should present such a controversial measure—a measure that will alter our constitutional arrangements—and fail to offer not just a convincing argument, but any argument at all.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend's argument is reinforced by the fact that we are debating Second Reading today and will complete the Committee stage tomorrow. The Government are trekking through the Bill with remarkable speed.

Mr. Forth: I deprecate that, and I think that it leads us to feel yet more suspicion about what on earth is going on. I suspect, sadly, that this is part of the recent

development in which we as a nation, and the Government, are being taken for a ride and being made to look like mugs.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I apologise for arriving late.
Given the history of the Irish question, is it not perverse that Parliament should now be invited to enable politicians from the Irish Republic to regain the opportunity to take seats here? Irish republicans fought hard to break away from Great Britain, thus severing their relationship with it in this context, and depriving themselves of that opportunity and that right. It could be said, of course, that at that time many parliamentarians were quite pleased that Irish representation had ended.

Mr. Forth: It has been pointed out today that it was the Irish who opted no longer to be members of the Commonwealth. It could be said that, if the Irish decided to reapply for membership of the Commonwealth, they would automatically be given this privilege as long as we continued to extend it to Commonwealth members. I have my doubts about that, but at the very least, such a gesture on the part of the Irish would be important. I suspect, however, that it will not be forthcoming.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I proposed a return to the United Kingdom in Dublin in the early 1970s, because I believed that there was a federation and a relationship. The right hon. Gentleman, however, may be unfair to Ministers in saying that they have not said what lies behind the Bill. Last week, there was an exchange between Lord Mayhew and Lord Molyneaux in the other place. We talk of mountain climbers; it seems that some folk have been negotiating behind the Government's back.

Mr. Forth: That is always a distinct possibility. In normal circumstances, we are told about transparency, accountability and open government, but it appears that the opposite phenomenon is operating in this case. We are being told nothing of what is going on, which, regrettably, means that we shall become even more suspicious about the motivation.
As has been said, so far we have seen the release of a large number of extraordinarily unpleasant and violent prisoners into the community, all in the name of the peace process. We have seen supporters of terrorism being invited into our institutions of government in part of the United Kingdom. We have seen no moves whatever towards decommissioning. It would appear that now, as part of the further process, we are being asked to see a subversion of our legislature. I wonder where this process will end.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the Bill just the latest obscene landmark in a process that ostensibly began as a peace process, but long ago became, in reality, a sordid, shabby process of appeasement that should therefore be rejected?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend gives his own powerful description of the process. I am saying that, to date, it appears that all the concessions have been made on one side. As far as I am aware, the terrorists and their friends have done nothing to reciprocate.
This is another example of something that is not being held back—something that could not be used as a bargaining counter, if that is the nature of the process—but is being given freely, unless we are told otherwise by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will put our minds at rest. Perhaps, in the interests of open government, he will be able to reassure us that none of this is the case. However, I can only speak as I have been able to find so far.
Having sat through the debate and listened carefully to every word, I have not yet heard why the Government are trying to push through a controversial Bill with such indecent haste—trying to push it through the House of Commons in two days—despite the many flaws that have been identified today. Most Members would normally consider that unacceptable, but on this occasion it seems to be happening with very little protest.
At every level, therefore, the Bill is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in principle. Its provisions are unacceptable and the way it is being pushed through the House of Commons is unacceptable. I hope that, when we come to the end of the debate, we will have a chance to vote on it because I am keen to be able to express my vote in the Lobby.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will not think me patronising if I say that her contribution should be read by every Member before deciding how to vote on Second Reading and throughout the Bill's passage through the House. Having heard the sound argument that has been advanced again and again against the Bill, with all its flaws, I cannot for the life of me understand why everyone who feels like that is not prepared to vote on Second Reading to halt what is an obscenity. It has been helpful that hon. Members have spoken out, because, when I share their views, it will not be seen as xenophobia on the part of Ulster Unionists.
I have spent my political life seeking reconciliation and accommodation between the major traditions in Northern Ireland and hoping against hope that we could have the sort of respect between the two political entities on the island of Ireland—Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—that would allow us to co-operate at every level: social, economic and political. However, it is utter and complete nonsense to create difficulty and conflict by expecting people to have primary loyalty to two separate sovereign Parliaments
Even after listening to the Minister, we do not know what the Bill is about. Everything that he has stated has been in generic terms. We have been told nothing specific that will help us to decide what the Government are getting at. Therefore, it is right that we should put our own interpretation on the Bill. We had no answers from the Minister; I certainly had no answer when I asked him about the discussions that he mentioned, when they took place, and who they involved. One might have thought that as the Bill deals with the relationship between the devolved Parliament in Stormont and the sovereign Parliament in Dublin my party would have been consulted and alerted to the Government's thinking, yet no mention was made of it until the decision was complete, the water was over the dam and the Bill was ready for debate.
In fact, it is worse than that. For years, there has been a feeling that the major parties in Great Britain—the Labour party, for example—should consider organising and fighting elections in Northern Ireland. The opportunity has been there all that time, but what has the Labour party done? It has eschewed the concept of being a party of the United Kingdom, putting responsibility—directly, in Northern Ireland's case—into the hands of a republican party, the Social Democratic and Labour party. Having eschewed the right to stand in Northern Ireland, where is the logic in the Labour party seeking, through its huge majority in this place, to impose a situation in which republican parties can sit in our devolved Assembly at Stormont?
Of course, we have to ask—again, without much hope of a response—whether there has been any indication that Fianna Fail, the largest party in the republic, Fine Gael, the Democratic Left or the Irish Labour party want to field candidates in Northern Ireland or here? I have no doubt about the matter. On Thursday and Friday last week, I was in Dublin and I discussed the Bill with journalists, with business and professional people of considerable repute, with senior Back-Bench politicians—including those who have the task of looking at constitutional issues—and with the most senior members of political parties there. Not one of them was familiar with the implications of what is being visited on us today. There was surprise.
I put my case to those people. Right hon. and hon. Members know that I am not a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I said to those people, "If I were a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Minister for Economic Development, but also the Teachda Dala for, say, County Meath and sat in the Dail, and an overseas company was coming to Ireland with 500 high-tech jobs, as Minister I would obviously have a responsibility to seek to site that development in a Northern Ireland constituency—but as TD for County Meath, would I not have a responsibility to ensure that the development was sited in that constituency, if that was the alternative site looked at by the investors?"
Each and every one of the people to whom I put that scenario agreed that it was nonsense and that there was a huge conflict of interest that should be considered not only in constitutional terms —constitutional issues are important—but in practical terms. They agreed that there were issues that could not be reconciled within the Bill.
It appears that the vast majority of hon. Members have no stomach for the Bill. It also appears from my 48 hours in Dublin last week that people there have neither interest in nor stomach for it—so why are the Government introducing it? That has been defined clearly tonight—it is being done, and in haste, because the Government do not properly recognise the view of those who came to an agreement more than a year ago and who had that agreement endorsed north and south, or the attitude of those who voted for our view.
Two people in particular—members of a minority party, Messrs Adams and McGuinness—are holding the Government and the Northern Ireland Office to ransom. The task that is being undertaken in this place is to find a way to placate them within a time scale that will not allow anyone to say, "The poor Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the fact that guns and bombs have not been decommissioned." That is the terror that is being visited upon the Secretary of State. Am I


right to fear that the Prime Minister has not only created this Bill, but visited on us other aberrations that have no basis in common sense or national interest?

Mr. Forth: Does my colleague the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) believe that if this dreadful Bill were passed—which, with the Government's majority, it may well be—there would be any stomach in Ireland for offering a reciprocal arrangement so that hon. Members could offer themselves for election to its legislature?

Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman knows that—although it is not, and will not be my choice—as a British citizen living in Northern Ireland I am eligible to sit in the Dail.

Mr. Forth: I am not.

Mr. Maginnis: Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman is not so entitled. Also, there certainly would be no stomach for permitting him to sit in the Dail. He misses my point if he does not recognise that, even if the opportunity to stand for election to the Irish legislature were available, there would be no possibility of him or me being elected to it. The Irish know one thing—and I admire them for it—and that is national interest.
The House of Commons is considering the Terrorism Bill in Committee. I shall not digress and deal with that Bill, except to say that it is a hotch-potch. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows all about that Bill. It has been designed not in the national interest, but to serve as a catch-all. It does not define "terrorist" in terms of our constitution and government, as it should do. That Bill is all over the place, which is exactly what is happening in the Disqualifications Bill. Someone has examined the situation in Northern Ireland and noticed that Sinn Fein is still dissatisfied with and reluctant to accept the accommodation and opportunity that many hon. Members—who are subject to great criticism from some their supporters—have provided for its members, which would allow them to move from violence to a democratic mode. Dublin knows very little or nothing about the Disqualifications Bill. It is surprised by it. As I said, Ministers cannot tell me whom they consulted on the Bill.
I am pleased that some hon. Members, other than Ulster Unionists, are alert to the problem that may arise with the Oath. They are wise to be alert to the issue—not that the Oath seems to matter a great deal. The Oath, which is supposed to be taken by every elected Member, was not taken by two Members who represent Sinn Fein. What did the Government decide to do about that? They decided to turn tradition on its head. Rather than saying, "If you take the Oath and become Members of Parliament, you will be entitled to the privileges of the House", Ministers accepted the Sinn Fein argument that one has a mandate if one is elected to the House.
On being elected to the House, most hon. Members do not say that they have a mandate. After our election to this place, we say that we have not a mandate, but a massive responsibility, which we meet from the moment we enter the House by taking the Oath or affirming. Thereafter, the privileges of this place are accorded to us. It was quite scandalous that the Government considered usurping the traditional right of Madam Speaker to protect the interests

of all hon. Members, and using their 170 majority to do so. I am only pleased that the weight of private opinion reverberating through this place caused the Government to delay a decision on whether to table such a motion.
Today, the House again has the opportunity to make the Government realise that the interests of those whom we represent must dominate—not the interests of those who have no time for, loyalty to, or sense of responsibility towards whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had a very interesting, serious and thoughtful debate. I hope that the Minister will have taken very firmly on board the remarks of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on the Oath and the granting of facilities to those who have not taken the Oath. I make it absolutely plain, beyond any equivocation or doubt, that the Opposition could not support such a move unless and until the peace process had been totally honoured—and I mean that totally honoured—by those who are rather holding us to ransom.
I tell the Under-Secretary of State—who, like me, has heard every speech in the debate—that it is a pity—and this is meant in no critical sense of the two Ministers—that today's debate on the Disqualifications Bill was not introduced by the Home Secretary and defended in reply by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Bill proposes taking extremely serious action. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made clear, our intention is not to vote against the Government in the Lobby today, it is certainly our intention to seek to have the Bill suitably amended before it is enacted.
I also hope that the Minister—who has heard not a single enthusiastic speech in favour of the Bill from either side of the House—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: What about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?

Sir Patrick Cormack: That speech was tempered by the statement of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that he thought that Ireland should again become a member of the Commonwealth. His speech was not an unthinking endorsement of the Government's Bill; indeed, there has been no such speech by any hon. Member on either side of the House.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about coming back to the House tomorrow with this Bill. It would be better if we had a little longer to reflect, to table amendments and to deal with the remaining stages a few days later than tomorrow. The Minister may say that agreements have been entered into, but the debate has been listened to by Opposition Members who have made extremely thoughtful and serious speeches.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to endorse the hon. Gentleman's view. Others, as well as his colleagues, have made representations that, given the controversial nature of the Bill, it would be quite wrong to have its Second Reading on one day, followed by the remaining stages the next day. We associate ourselves strongly with that view.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who made a thoughtful and constructive


speech. What has come out of the debate, from all speakers, is that this is not the easy issue that the Minister claimed it to be when he opened the debate.
We accept that there are anomalies within any constitution. We accept, for instance, that in the British Nationality Act 1981 we specifically reiterated the right of members of Commonwealth legislatures to sit here as well. All of my hon. Friends who have spoken and were in the House at the time will have done as I am certain I did, and voted in support of that Act. Today's debate has shown the deep unease—voiced briefly, but most eloquently, by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—about conflicting loyalties and how one can be a member of two Assemblies.
The other message that has come across clearly and forcefully has been that if we are to move as proposed, reciprocity ought to be a requirement. If we have a little longer before the remaining stages, amendments could be tabled to underline that point, so that our friends in the Republic of Ireland—and they are our friends—would understand that that is the feeling of the House. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that constitutional amendments might be needed, and perhaps that should be seriously contemplated.
The other point that has come out of almost every speech is why now? The Bill is premature. Although the Minister will doubtless repudiate what I am about to say, many Opposition Members feel that there is a great deal in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. They said that it would appear that this place is acting at the behest of two people who have been elected to it, but have never been prepared to act responsibly as Members of Parliament. They have never been prepared to take the Oath or to affirm. They have never urged their friends, allies and colleagues in the IRA to begin the decommissioning process.
It perturbs many Opposition Members to see people being released from jail who are guilty of the most heinous crimes. It made me feel a little uneasy—to put it extremely mildly—to see Mr. Adams delivering the eulogy and carrying the coffin at an IRA funeral this weekend. All of those things are very much taken to heart by Opposition Members—and, I am sure, by the Minister and many Labour Members.
We are not happy that to move the Bill quickly towards the statute book before decommissioning has begun and before we have had the first report from General de Chastelain to tell us that it is properly under way. However, the Opposition are so committed to the peace process and to the work done by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), by my noble Friend Lord Mayhew and by the Prime Minister and other Labour Ministers, that we will not oppose Second Reading.
It would be in the interests of everyone who truly wants a peaceful Northern Ireland and proper constitutional arrangements to be developed between the Republic of Ireland and this country if the Bill were to be put on the back burner for a little while. There is no reason why that

should not happen. There is no reason why we should not have more time to table amendments. There is no reason why there should not be some detailed consultation.
I was somewhat concerned to learn from the speeches of Ulster Unionist Members that there had not been a great deal of consultation with them before the Bill was introduced. There should have been. There has not been the cross-party accord that should lie behind the Bill if it is to have the cross-party support that the Government, understandably, want it to have and which we really want to give it because of our commitment to a peace process that has been developed on an all-party basis.
I know that the Under-Secretary is anxious to answer all the questions raised in the debate. I promised to cut short my remarks so that he would have longer to reply. I hope that he will deal with every question and that he will face them all fairly and squarely. Above all, I hope that he will give two undertakings to this House. The first was given equivocally by the Minister—that is, that we believe in the paramount importance of the Oath and we are not prepared to connive at any arrangement that would circumvent it. The other is that Ministers will go away, talk to the Government's business managers and consider putting off the remaining stages beyond tomorrow.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a good debate, in which strongly held views have been put strongly and any doubts that people may have have been covered.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) should not labour under the delusion that the Bill is the product of some arrangement between Ministers and Sinn Fein. Representations were made by the Irish Government—whether they communicated with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is another matter. [Interruption.] I can assure the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that I will refer to him later. Certainly there were discussions between this Government and the Irish Government.
Another point is that there was consultation about the Bill. I do not know how far down the chain of command of the Ulster Unionist party that consultation went, but it is precisely as a result of that consultation that clause 2 is now in the Bill. Clause 2 would not have figured in the Bill as originally envisaged.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the Minister has just made, and I understand that there might have been consultations a fortnight ago. However, a fortnight ago in this place, I asked why we were rushing the Committee the day after the Second Reading of this important Bill. I regret that minority rights have not always been defended, even in this House.

Mr. Howarth: It was precisely because there was consultation that we felt it not unreasonable to have a tight timetable. Although individual members of different parties have expressed strong reservations, there has been an agreement that Second Reading would be uncontested by the Opposition. Normally, that gives reason to believe that it is reasonable to have a fairly short time scale.
On the question of whether the Bill is being hurried, it was published before Christmas. Anyone with concerns or reservations has had plenty of time to consider the Bill in detail and table appropriate amendments.
I shall cover first the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). One reason for that is that, as many hon. Members noted, she set the tone of the debate. However, a second reason is that I hold my hon. Friend in very high regard indeed, for reasons that are known only to her and to me. Had it not been for her, I should not have become a Member of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich asked a prescient question when she asked why the Bill was being introduced. As she rightly noted, the circumstances are not precisely the same as those involving the Commonwealth. However, a variety of arrangements exist between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday agreement. Those arrangements include the implementation bodies covering issues such as inland waterways, food safety, trade and business developments, special European Union programmes, the Irish language and Ulster Scots, and aquaculture.

Mr. Maginnis: The Under-Secretary of State was at pains to tell us that the proposal had nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Is the Minister now agreeing with my earlier suggestion that the Bill has been enamelled on to the agreement?

Mr. Howarth: I shall come to that precise point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. Not for one moment am I saying that the Bill arises out of the Good Friday agreement. It does not, but as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained, the arrangements between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and this House—and the Government—are unique and different. Our response to the agreement must reflect that. The argument is about context rather than precise linkage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of whether the Republic of Ireland should be invited to join the Commonwealth. It would be foolhardy of me to get involved in that debate today. In the long term, it is a matter for the Irish people and Government to decide. However, I am sure that the House will agree with my hon. Friend that, regardless of the links between southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, very strong ties of kinship exist between people from Ireland in general. I speak for my own family in that regard: our ties to Ireland go back a long way, but they exist none the less. That makes a difference to the relationship between our countries.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is no longer in the Chamber. That is unfortunate, as I wanted to address her directly. She made a helpful and responsible speech, and raised a couple of issues that should be answered. First, she spoke about the need to consider the link between the Bill and decommissioning. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said that that linkage should not be made, and I strongly agree. It would be inappropriate to make that link, as I hope the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her supporters will understand. Decommissioning is an important element in the Good Friday agreement, but the agreement must stand as a separate issue.
The Good Friday agreement makes the link, and the matter should be viewed in that context. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has stated that any default on decommissioning reported by General de Chastelain would have serious consequences. It is important to keep that uppermost in our minds when we consider the various linkages with the Good Friday agreement.
I shall deal with the second point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald in my response to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He and others—including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) —asked about the conflicts of interest that would be incurred by a person who sat in two legislatures and who was a Minister in the Government attached to one of those legislatures. That is an important point and I listened to the argument very carefully.
I have not had the opportunity of studying the amendment on that subject tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will study it overnight with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I cannot give a firm commitment on the amendment, especially as I have not seen it, but we shall reflect carefully on the issues raised in this debate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, as I have still to respond to some participants in the debate.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also asked about the Oath. That is an important matter, and one that has been raised repeatedly. The Bill does not change the Oath of Allegiance. The Government do not intend to change it; we are not talking to anyone or consulting with anyone about the possibility of changing it.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked for a absolute commitment on the issue. She served with some distinction in the previous Government, and she knows that no Government can give cast-iron guarantees of that kind. However, it would be wrong for anyone to think that a change in the Oath is in prospect. It is not around the corner, nor around any corner that I can foresee.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone knows that I hold him in high regard, as do many of my colleagues. We should not forget that matters of identity, allegiance and loyalty have been at the heart of divisions in Northern Ireland for a long time. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. That history has been discussed many times in this debate already, so I shall not rehearse it. However, I merely observe that, in Northern Ireland, there is no such thing as a yes-no, black-and-white issue. We are dealing with complex matters that have to be discussed.
Many people in Northern Ireland think of themselves as British, as they are, but many also think of themselves as Irish. By reason of their birth in Northern Ireland, they are entitled to Irish citizenship. Asked—in relation to sports, culture or politics, for instance—whether they


think of themselves as Irish or British, people will give many different answers. I am pleased at the arrival in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, as he will know exactly what I mean.
The Government take such matters very seriously, and I have given a clear undertaking that we will reflect overnight on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 17.

Division No. 34]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Alexander, Douglas
Coaker, Vernon


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Cooper, Yvette


Ballard, Jackie
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Jean


Battle, John
Cotter, Brian


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Cranston, Ross


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Crausby, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Best, Harold
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dawson, Hilton


Blizzard, Bob
Dean, Mrs Janet


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dismore, Andrew


Borrow, David
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Doran, Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Breed, Colin
Drew, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Browne, Desmond
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fearn, Ronnie


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzpatrick, Jim



Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chaytor, David
Foulkes, George


Chidgey, David
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godsiff, Roger





Goggins, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Martlew, Eric


Grant, Bernie
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Grogan, John
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Miller, Andrew


Healey, John
Mitchell, Austin


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hepburn, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heppell, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hill, Keith
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hood, Jimmy



Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Oaten, Mark


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Rendel, David


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rogers, Allan


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Sanders, Adrian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


Macdonald, Calum
Sawford, Phil


McDonnell, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


MacShane, Denis
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Snape, Peter






Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Spellar, John
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Stevenson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wareing, Robert N


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wicks, Malcolm


Stunell, Andrew
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wills, Michael



Winnick, David


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woodward, Shaun


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES



Cash, William
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thompson, William


Gill, Christopher
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Maginnis, Ken
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Mates, Michael
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. George Howarth.]
Question agreed to.
Committee tomorrow.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have heard during the debate, concerns were expressed that the Committee will sit tomorrow when Second Reading was only today. Can you advise us whether there are procedures whereby we might adjourn the Committee stage beyond tomorrow, so that colleagues inside and outside the Chamber have a chance to read the Second Reading debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): In the House, we take one day at a time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could consider that matter tomorrow. The Bill is committed to Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

As amended, considered.

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, I gave notice of several points of order that I want to raise before we proceed.
On at least two—possibly three—previous occasions, I have raised the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the process of the Bill. Under section 19 of that Act, when a Bill is introduced by the Government, with a Minister in charge, there must be a declaration that it complies with the European convention on human rights.
When I raised that issue with Madam Speaker, she advised me that that was not the case for private Bills, but suggested that there might be a way in which the matter could be remedied. The Chairman of Ways and Means, or others, might, informally, by a change in Standing Orders allow that provision also to be applied to private legislation. I would welcome your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether any procedure has been invoked to enable that to occur. I strongly hold the view that the House should be advised independently by its Officers as to whether such measures comply with the ECHR. It is a dereliction of our duty if we do not secure that compliance for all legislation, whether public or private.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to write to Madam Speaker to inform her that he wanted to raise points of order. On the point that he raised, the Chairman of Ways and Means has ruled on the matter on previous occasions; there is no change. A new clause on the subject has been selected for debate, so the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his points.

Mr. McDonnell: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise the issue of our ability to amend the titles and preambles of Bills. I have tabled several such amendments to the Bill. At present, the title is the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. As you are aware, the Bill does not allow for elections but for appointments. I want to amend its title to "City of London (Ward Elections and the Appointment of Voters) Bill", because some of the electors are appointed by businesses.
Secondly, the preamble states:
It is expedient to alter the qualification for which that Act provides better to reflect the present nature of commercial occupation of premises in the city of London".
It continues:
It is expedient that the other connected matters dealt with in this Act should be enacted.
The matter is not expedient—it is open to debate; that is what these proceedings are all about. However, we do not have the opportunity to amend the preamble or the title. We are passing over a major element of the measure without proper debate and with no allocation of time to amend it. I would welcome your views—and, possibly, your further consideration—Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the right of Members to amend titles and preambles of Bills, if not on this occasion, in the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not the practice of the Chair to give reasons for the selection of amendments. Page 922


of "Erskine May" sets out some of the limitations on amendments at this stage in the passage of a private Bill. The hon. Gentleman can always go to the Officers of the House—the Clerks—for advice when he is drawing up amendments.

Mr. McDonnell: I would not want it to appear that I had not approached the Officers of the House. I did approach them, and they very kindly quoted me the relevant section of the Standing Orders that dealt with this matter, but I did not understand the rationale for not allowing the title or the preamble of a Bill to be amended.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has given notice of four points of order. If I may deal with them, I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards. We do not want to commence with a debate on points of order.

Mr. McDonnell: I have five points of order. I apologise for the lack of notification of the fifth.
You have partially dealt with my third point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is about the selection of amendments. I am advised by the Officers of the House—and you have so advised me tonight—that there is no debate about the selection of amendments. There is no publication of the rationale for selection, so there is, in my view, a breakdown of accountability with regard to the processes of the House: the accountability of decision making by Officers of the House and others to the House. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Speaker, yourself and the Chairman of Ways and Means what mechanism there is to ensure that there is a debate in the Chamber on the selection of amendments in each case. This is not to delay matters, but to ensure accountability of the Officers of the House in the procedures of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chair is aided by the Standing Orders of the House. The selection is made by Madam Speaker, and it is not a debatable matter.

Mr. McDonnell: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would welcome your advice at a later date about how to go about amending the Standing Orders of the House to allow future debate on these matters. I do so with the utmost courtesy and respect for the procedures of the House.
Fourthly, when the Bill was brought before the House on the carry-over, we were advised by the City of London Corporation and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), the Minister responsible for the Bill—although I will not use the words "in charge of the Bill" because, as we all know, this is an unwhipped Bill—that a wider package of reforms that was proposed to the House by the City corporation would be implemented. That wider package of reforms influenced

the debate on the Bill. There has been no report back from the City corporation to the House on the implementation of those reforms, and to my knowledge none of them has yet been implemented. In that case, I believe that we debated the Bill on the basis of information provided to us by the promoters of the Bill that was inaccurate and deceptive, and I believe that at some stage a statement should be required of the promoters on the issue of the implementation of the wider package before we proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that a statement on the wider implementation of the package appears in paragraph 9 of a statement on behalf of the promoters, which is available from the Vote Office. Those matters do not form part of the Bill and are not formally before the House tonight. To the extent that those changes are relevant to the amendments before the House, they may be alluded to in the debate; otherwise, it may be possible for them to be referred to in the debate on Third Reading.

Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The final point of order, for which I apologise for not having giving notice, is that I and my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and others, placed a motion before the House that the Bill should not be considered until "this day six months". That motion has never been debated, and yet the Bill has been brought forward for debate. I would welcome the opportunity to debate that motion and would ask for a time to be set aside to enable us to debate a motion that has been properly laid before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was an amendment that was not selected, and therefore it is not for debate at the moment.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my view, that reinforces the argument that there must be a debate on the selection of amendments in this House if the decisions of the Speaker are to be held accountable to the House. I say that with all courtesy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But it is not a matter that should be taking up the time of the House at the moment. There are procedures that the hon. Gentleman can pursue.

Mr. Cohen: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order about being unable to amend the title of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have served on Committees that considered public Bills. Amendments have been tabled to their titles and changes made. I hear what you say about its perhaps being in "Erskine May", but it is pretty unusual that Members do not get the opportunity to alter or consider the title of a Bill just because it is a private Bill. I would ask that that aspect of the procedure at least be referred to the Procedure Committee. However, that is not the main point of order that I wish to raise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Deputy Speaker cannot grasp all the points that he is putting because he is getting us involved in a debate, but what I told him and his colleague is that


the selection of amendments is not a matter for debate. The Procedure Committee does not deal with private business.

Mr. Cohen: I hear what you are saying. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has heard what I am saying, but I cannot spend the time taking points of order. Some of the points—

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some of the points are really matters for debate.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does Mr. Cohen have another point of order?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, I do—a specific point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, as my colleague did. It was remiss of me, but it was a simple point of order. Clause 1 says:
This Act may be cited as the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 1999.
It might have escaped the promoters' recollection, but we are actually in the year 2000. I submitted an amendment, altering 1999 to 2000, which I thought was helpful and sensible. Obviously, there was a carry-over period and it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating an amendment that was not selected. If the Bill goes for Royal Assent, that matter will be dealt with at that stage, but that is not a matter for debate now. I must proceed with the business before us.

New Clause 1

STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

'().—(1) Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
'"the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.'.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased to be the opening bat in the debate. I am pleased that my new clause has been selected for debate, in view of the ingenuity and diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and his twin, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), whose many amendments appear on the amendment paper. I am grateful to whoever makes the selections. Nevertheless,

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for his assiduous, unrelenting opposition to a rather grubby Bill.
New clause 1, with consequential amendment No. 22, would in essence meet one of the points that were raised on a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington—that the Bill is, in our view, deficient because it does not carry a certificate. It does not have an endorsement that it complies with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. I believe that we have stumbled across a flaw in our law-making process in this place. Private Bills do not have such an endorsement automatically, and it has not been volunteered by the Bill's promoters at the outset.
7.30 pm
I remind the House that, when we passed the Human Rights Act 1998, it was made explicit under section 19(1)(a) that Government and public Bills had to have an endorsement on the green paper of the Bill itself that the Secretary of State in charge of it confirmed that, in his or her view, it met the provisions of the European convention. For some reason that I have been unable to ascertain, that provision was not made to cover private legislation. Whatever hon. Members' views of the merits of this Bill, it is surely perverse that our legislative process has a rule that requires one, but not another, category of Bill to receive certification that it is compatible with the European convention.
That is perverse and foolhardy. If this or another private Bill reaches the statute book and is challenged in the courts of the United Kingdom or even in Strasbourg, the Attorney-General, not the Bill's promoters, will be required to defend its provisions. He would have to defend something to which he was not originally a party and to defend it at enormous public expense. That would be at the expense not of the taxpayers of the City of London, but of the public purse as a whole.
The House should accept new clause 1 on the basis of prudence and good housekeeping. Until such time as the House revisits the Human Rights Act 1998 and it becomes a requirement for a private Bill to have the same endorsement as public Bills, it would be prudent for the House or another place to adopt the wording in the new clause for every private Bill that comes before them.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend said that his new clause addresses our earlier concerns, but I do not think that it does. However, I shall come to that point if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Bill's promoters would not be liable under the Human Rights Act if anyone sought a future remedy. He said that the Attorney-General would be the defendant. In my view, we are all responsible for the Bill; the localised immunity that we think we have as Members of Parliament does not exist. That has been adequately demonstrated in other cases recently and I shall elaborate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This an extremely long intervention. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to participate later in the debate if he catches my eye.

Mr. Mackinlay: I follow my hon. Friend's drift, but I look forward to his amplifying his point a little later.
I want to emphasise the point that the obligation to defend the United Kingdom statute book in the courts would lie with the Attorney-General. So far as I am aware, he has not even been asked about this matter. When a Secretary of State presents a public Bill, he does not say glibly that the Bill of which he is the architect complies with the European convention. A memorandum is exchanged between him and the Law Officers, and the Law Officers, not as politicians but as lawyers, express a view. In a sense, the Secretary of State who is piloting the Bill acts as conduit of that information and he reports back to the House. He says that he has consulted the Law Officers, who confirm that a Bill meets the requirements of the convention.
This is not a Government Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will—this evening or subsequently—write to the Attorney-General asking him formally whether the Bill meets the requirements of the convention. He should do that because, if for no other reason, he has an obligation to the public purse. I also presume that he does not want the United Kingdom to be embarrassed in the courts when our legislation is scrutinised. I therefore hope that, when the Minister winds up, he will take account of that point and will, whatever happens, undertake to ask the Attorney-General explicitly for his view on the matter.
May I through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, address the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)? Quite naturally and rightly, he is the principal steward of the Bill for one of the local authorities in his constituency. The right hon. Gentleman could and should stand up tonight on behalf of the promoters and say, "I accept this new clause." If he does not or is unable to, that suggests that the promoters think the Bill is flawed and deficient in this regard. Why otherwise would they not accept this prudent new clause? When the right hon. Gentleman addresses the House, I hope that he will suggest that he will accept the new clause or commend it to the Bill's promoters so that the Bill could be tidied up.
I have already said the Human Rights Act explicitly requires that a Government Bill be consistent with the European convention. However, the Act is silent about private legislation, and that reflects a failure by the House. We do not make good law because scrutiny is inadequate. However, the Act does not say that such an undertaking cannot be given for private Bills. In a written answer, the Home Secretary pointed out the obligation for a public Bill to have such certification, and also referred to private Bills. He said:
Where the Bill is directly assisted by the Government"—
I stress those words—
…the Minister responsible for the policy should, as a matter of practice, express the Government's views on compatibility with convention rights during the Second Reading debate." — [Official Report, 5 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 377W.]
While we have given this Bill a Second Reading, I read into that reply that the Home Secretary was getting the message that the Government could not ignore the fact that the courts in this country or the European Court in Strasbourg may consider it a flaw if the Government do not counsel Parliament on the obligations under the convention.

Mr. Tony Benn: The term "private Bill" refers to the procedure for passing it. However, when it is

passed, it becomes an Act of Parliament. Indeed, in that respect there is no distinction between a private Member's Bill and a Government Bill. Once enacted, it changes the law of Britain either in the City of London or elsewhere. The Minister should give the assurance that Bills that are likely to become Acts will be clear with regard to the convention, and automatically so. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister cannot use the excuse that the matter has nothing to do with him because it is a private Bill? He is assisting it and it will end up as an Act of Parliament passed by the House.

Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely. That is why I return to the point that, if the proposed Act were ever the subject of scrutiny in the courts, the Attorney-General would have to defend the veracity of an Act of Parliament in United Kingdom statute. We surely have a vested interest in avoiding such embarrassment.
The Government cannot say in this debate or subsequently—I am sure that the point will be picked up in another place if the Government continue to ignore it—that they do not have a moral obligation, or one of prudence, to ask the Attorney-General to consider the matter and to report formally to the House on it. The Home Secretary was obviously getting wind of that in his written answer, which created a new category of Bill—one directly assisted by the Government.
When I first became interested in this Bill—on Second Reading, I think—I was amazed that the Government were not only acquiescing in its provisions but directly assisting it. It seems that the Home Secretary's criteria are being met. I see my hon. Friend the Minister looking at me as if butter would not melt in his mouth, yet Government Whips pressurised us not to resist the Bill. Indeed, I remember that they carefully arranged debate on part of it between two pieces of public business. On that occasion, I was told by a Whip that I was a wretched person for keeping other hon. Members in the House late by debating the Bill at some length.
You might like tomorrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to scrutinise the Official Report. You would find that no payroll Member had exercised their discretion to join myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and others in the Ayes Lobby. That is because the payroll vote is whipped and hon. Members on it are directly assisting the passage of the Bill. I do not want to labour the point; suffice it to say that such behaviour meets the Home Secretary's criteria.

Mr. Martin Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that the Government are not only acquiescing in but encouraging a piece of legislation that is profoundly undemocratic, anti-democratic and belongs not to the 21st century but to the 18th?

Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed; I was truly amazed by that. There might not be many common denominators among members of the parliamentary Labour party, but I thought that one was a belief in universal adult suffrage. Even if we cannot always persuade our party managers of that for the purposes of our own discussions, I thought that constitutionally we believed in one person, one vote.
That brings me to an important point, which I was going to save for later. I was trying to concentrate on the legal and professional issues, but the intervention of


my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has reminded me of it. If the Bill is passed without certification of compliance with the human rights convention—I, like many others, do not think that it will receive such certification because it does not so comply—what signals will be sent around the world from what we pride as the mother of Parliaments?
I remember debates in the 1960s and 1970s when the Prime Minister of South Africa used to pray in aid comparisons with the Northern Ireland special powers legislation to legitimise some of his statutes. People who argue that this Bill, as it stands, complies with article 3 of the European convention could therefore also have argued that the constitution of Ian Smith's Rhodesia met such criteria—save for the fact that the country was not in Europe. The criteria would have matched.
I raise that because people around the world look for excuses for legitimising undemocratic legislation. Despots and people with very shady legislative practices will of course say that their legislation mirrors that passed in 2000 in the mother of Parliaments. I wanted to advance that argument in explaining why the Bill does not comply with European convention obligations.

Mr. John Cryer: The relevant article of the European convention is article 3 of the 1952 protocol, which specifies:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections … under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
If this Bill becomes law, it seems that it will contravene article 3. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Mackinlay: The Bill does contravene the convention. If my hon. Friend had read those words to Ian Smith, he would have said that his electoral law complied with it. Although he might have asserted that, those in this place and elsewhere would almost unanimously have known differently.
We must look into the words of the article to find out what it means. It clearly and inexorably leads one to conclude—I am sure that there is plenty of case law on the matter—that for compliance there must be universal adult suffrage, unimpeded or unadulterated by any special electoral rolls, such as those which are features both of this Bill and of legislation in the unilateral declaration of independence legislature in Southern Rhodesia in the 1960s. It is clearly perverse to think that the Bill would ever meet our obligations under the convention.
I am trying to persuade the House and the promoters, that from a law-making point of view, there is an overwhelming case for accepting new clause 1. If they believe that I am wrong, we shall soon discover who is right, because the Secretary of State will be obliged to have a word with the Attorney-General. I am sure that the promoters would not wish to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the European convention. All I argue is that there should be this test. What is wrong with that? What have the promoters to hide?
Very able staff in the Library drew my attention to a legal opinion which, with the permission of the House, I shall summarise. It expresses the view that the fact that

we decline to consider whether a piece of legislation complies with the European convention could make it ultra vires. The opinion states:
the requirement for a written statement under s 19"—
of the Human Rights Act—
might have important effects on rules governing judicial recognition of Acts of Parliament. The making and publication of the statement might be regarded as conditions precedent to the legal power of either House of Parliament to proceed to consider, a fortiori, to approve, the Bill. If so, it will give rise to an innovation in United Kingdom constitutional law, in that it will open up the possibility that judges might hold legislation purportedly passed without a s 19 statement having been made to be invalidated by procedural ultra vires in the form of a failure to comply with a condition precedent to the exercise of the power to legislate … it would perhaps be possible for a court to treat s 19 as introducing a new requirement to the rule of recognition applicable to statutes, breach of which would invalidate a measure purporting to be a statute.
To a layman like me, that means that the fact that the provisions of section 19 have not been fulfilled in respect of the Bill or any other private Bill might make such Bills ultra vires.

Mr. Cohen: I trust that I am not making a frivolous intervention on a good argument, but the opinion my hon. Friend has just quoted contains a word that I do not understand—fortiori. It sounds Italian—

Mr. Andrew Dismore: It is Latin.

Mr. Cohen: As a layman, I do not know whether that word is relevant to the argument. Will my hon. Friend explain the meaning of the word and its relevance, if any, to his argument?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am not sure whether I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. However, I have had the opportunity to read the legal opinion in its entirety. It is manifest that the United Kingdom Parliament is in danger of the acute embarrassment of having a statute scrutinised in the courts—either the UK courts or the Strasbourg court testing it against the European convention on human rights—and its being held to be ultra vires and hence invalid. If that happened, it would be a bad day for Parliament.
Although the A-level textbooks on the British constitution state that it is not possible for the courts to look at the Official Report during a court case, my understanding is that the matter is not that simple. It would be drawn to the court's attention that, this evening, I—and, no doubt, others—drew to the attention of Her Majesty's Government their obligations under the Human Rights Act. If the Minister is not prepared to concede tonight that there is at least a point that requires further examination, the court will note the flagrant disregard and arrogance displayed by the Government when they were cautioned about their duties and obligations.
The Minister points to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is the sponsor of the Bill. I could give the Minister a bowl of water, so that, like Pontius Pilate, he could pretend that the Bill was nothing to do with him. However, it is directly to do with him. The right hon. Gentleman could use his good offices to counsel the Bill's supporters to accept new clause 1. However, the Minister's body language appears to


indicate that he has failed to grasp that he, as a member of the Government, has an obligation to get the legislation right. The judges will look at our debate tonight and, when they see the Government's arrogant disregard for the advice they were given, they are far more likely to find in favour of the person who has made the complaint against a perverse and grubby piece of legislation.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend focuses on the Human Rights Act 1998, but our obligations extend beyond that Act to the European convention on human rights itself. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it is found that the Bill breaches that convention—there are strong arguments to be made that it does—the UK could, irrespective of section 17 of the 1998 Act, find itself before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which could find the Bill to be in breach of the convention? Irrespective of the 1998 Act, the Bill may be in breach of the convention.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I sometimes despair: I should have expected an intervention by now, either from the Minister or from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We are told that he and the Bill's supporters want the legislation to be passed. Its progress has taken and will continue to take a long time, unless the right hon. Gentleman rises and tells us that he will commend the new clause to the Bill's supporters, whom he could consult during the debate.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not do as I suggest, I hope that it will be noted by those outside the House that both the Bill's promoter and the Government were counselled on the matter. When the Bill reaches another place, I hope that their Lordships—whatever their views on and affection for the quaint and arcane arrangements for the City of London—will understand that an important legal principle is at stake and must be taken into account. I hope that, either here or in another place, new clause 1 will be incorporated in the Bill, before it is enacted.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has done the House a signal service by tabling the new clause, not only because of its relevance to the Bill, but because of its relevant to the procedures of the House in a wider sense. I should say that my purpose is not to delay the Bill's progress—I believe not in using procedural methods to delay Bills with which I do not agree, but in defeating them in the appropriate manner, that is, in the Lobby. I hasten to add that the City of London is of limited relevance to my Somerset constituency, even though, when I am in London, I live only 50 yards from its boundary.
In broad terms, my reason for participating in the debate is that there is at stake an important principle, both in terms of the way in which we in this country conduct our democracy and in terms of the way in which we in the House adopt procedures to comply with the commitments that we have given, either through treaty, as in our original adoption of the European convention on human rights, or through legislation, as in the Human Rights Act 1998. Certain of the Bill's contents give rise to, at least, concern about its compatibility with the Human Rights Act.
The hon. Gentleman and I have, for two and a half years, served together on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He will recall the careful work that that Committee carried out in respect of electoral proceedings in Hong Kong, as part of an overall study of human rights. We were highly critical of the proposals adopted by the Chinese Government, with the support of the Hong Kong authorities, because they appeared to be at variance with our understanding of human rights and proper electoral processes.
The Bill creates an arrangement which, if not precisely identical, bears more than a passing resemblance to the Hong Kong arrangements. Therefore, it is right that the House should satisfy itself as to whether there is a breach of human rights legislation. If it were to be found that the Bill is in breach of that legislation, that begs the question whether the current arrangements for the City of London are even more in breach. However, that is a separate matter that is not encompassed by today's debate.
8 pm
The issue is important for the House because the hon. Member for Thurrock has put his finger on a deficiency within our present arrangements. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right when he says that there is no differential, when we pass a Bill to become an Act, when it comes to the route by which it reached the statute book. That is merely a matter of procedure within the House. At the end of the day, the measure is an Act of Parliament.
If I part company with the hon. Member for Thurrock, it is when he says that there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that legislation that is presented to the House is in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is a responsibility on us all, as legislators, to satisfy ourselves that the legislation that we are prepared to put forward is in line with the 1998 Act. Have we yet satisfied ourselves that we have fulfilled that implied duty on us? My answer is, "No, we are not." We would be satisfied, perhaps, by an assertion from the Treasury Bench, but only if that were backed up by appropriate legal advice, which means the intervention of the Attorney-General. We have had no such assurances. Therefore, that which is proposed in the new clause seems adequate to fill the lacuna in our present procedures and would prevent the implementation of the Bill until we have received satisfaction.
Those on the Treasury Bench should consider the problem carefully. I do not think that at present there is an appropriate procedure. I cannot accept that there is a distinction between Government-sponsored legislation and that which comes from Back-Bench Members, and there must be some defence against us acting effectively unconstitutionally, and certainly in breach of our commitments. I do not think that the hon. Member for Thurrock is right when he suggests that we can act ultra vires in these circumstances. That is not a term that would apply to the House. However, there is scope at some later stage for a court to certify that the legislation that has been passed in these circumstances is not in accordance with either our own domestic legislation—for example, the Human Rights Act—or our treaty obligations. That would require the Government to introduce further legislation. It was a deficiency in the Human Rights Act


that we did not incorporate the ability to strike down law that was held to be in breach of the human rights convention, but that is a different matter.
I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply to this short debate. If there is a Division on the new clause, I intend at present to support the hon. Member for Thurrock. I say that as an individual Member and not as a party spokesman. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these matters, has some sympathy with the view of the hon. Gentleman. He is nodding, so I take it that he is assenting.
Those who support the Bill should explain how we shall otherwise discover whether the legislation that we are being asked to consider, support and enact is in accord with existing legislation and with the treaty obligations into which we freely entered. I do not believe that the mechanism currently exists. Irrespective of whether the clause is passed this evening, the debate has raised an issue that needs to be considered on another occasion to ensure that all the legislation that we consider is in accordance with our clear intentions as demonstrated by the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Tony Benn: I have listened to the debate with great interest, and especially to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We are discussing not only how the City of London should arrange its elections, but much wider matters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) should tell the House whether the promoters considered its implications under the European convention on human rights. The Government, however, are providing massive assistance—they are distancing themselves from the Bill politically while supporting it. The promoters, however, have a responsibility for ensuring that their legislation, which will be part of the legislation of the United Kingdom, accords with the European convention. The Government must deal with the issue if it arises later.
I put the second question personally to the right hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member. Having previously been Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with responsibility for human rights, does he believe that a resident in the City of London, who could be outvoted by people or companies who have bought their votes, would be able to take a case to the European Court of Justice? Those of us who vote in general elections go to polling stations, where there are masses of huge notices warning us about bribery and corrupt practice, for example. Yet the Bill legalises the very corrupt practices that would, we are warned, get us unseated by an election court. I have twice been before an election court, and it is a terrifying body.
Could it really be the case that a resident in the City of London, who discovered that his claim to vote in a ward election was overwhelmed by people or companies who had bought their votes and nominated the elected, would not have a reasonable chance of going to the European court and saying, "This is corrupt"? If the Bill is enacted, the election court would have to interpret the measure that is before us. It would say, "I am sorry, it may be corrupt generally but it is not corrupt in London because Parliament has passed legislation that allows this type of corruption." However, that will not apply if someone goes

to the European court. That court would have the right to consider the legislation as well as the practice and relate the two to the convention.
I have used strong language, and I believe that we are considering a corrupt proposal. I do not mean that individuals will benefit, but I believe that we are being asked to legalise the buying of votes for political purposes. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility, quite apart from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to consider whether we want to see the great City of London having its local government bought by companies under legislation that we enact. The House is almost empty, but I know that if there is a Division the Lobbies will fill with Members who have been told by the Whips that they have a duty to support the Bill. That is what happened last time.

Mr. Robert Syms: In 1969, Lord Callaghan reformed the business vote in much of Britain except for that in the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Labour Cabinet. If he felt so strongly about the matter, why did he not resign?

Mr. Benn: The thought that someone should resign if he is a minority in the Cabinet is an interesting one. If that were the position, the Cabinet would lose half its membership every week. I have never accepted that approach. I do not recall the then Cabinet ever discussing the matter because not every little piece of legislation comes before Cabinet. I say without any discourtesy that not everything that Lord Callaghan did is automatically inscribed in the article of faith. The present Government would describe Lord Callaghan as old Labour to his fingertips. As a loyal supporter of the Government, do not ask me to endorse such old Labour corruption, as identified in the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Of course, there has been the buying of votes in the past. Indeed, the practice was legal. If we go back far enough, we find that ordinary people did not have the vote. In 1832, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote: they were all rich white men. It may seem that 1832 is a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born. Democracy is quite new. Women got the vote at the same age as men only in my lifetime. That was 1928. Only a year or two before I was elected to this place, we got rid of the business vote and the university vote. We are now reintroducing the corporation vote. Although this goes beyond the terms of the debate, London should be brought under the new mayor, so when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) takes responsibility for London he will be able to deal with the problems of the electoral system in the City as well as other matters. However, that is a wider issue that I must not go into.
Democracy should be central to the views of all hon. Members. It should not divide us politically, and it certainly should not incorporate the Government Front Bench along with the City of London, whose acquaintance with democracy is a narrow one. It is an offshore island moored in the Thames, with a freedom that many other offshore islands would be glad to have. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will address himself to my question: did he and the promoters seek advice? Secondly, does he think that under


normal election law an elector would have a claim against a winning candidate, who would use the mechanisms that we are being invited to endorse?

Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) back to the deliberations. We enjoyed his contribution on Second Reading. Some of the remarks in the admirable contribution that he has just made had the flavour of a re-run of some of his observations on Second Reading. I shall return later to the question that he asked me.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) tabled new clause 1. Shortly after he became a Member of Parliament, he asked me an oral question when I was still a member of the Cabinet. He prefaced his question with the sentiment that although I was a very nice chap, I was a rotten Minister. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a very nice chap and I am sorry that his capacity as a Minister has not yet been tested. The skill with which he remained in order for a speech that lasted approximately half an hour was testimony to his ability as a parliamentarian. I cannot divine the Patronage Secretary's view, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was extremely skilful. I shall respond to his questions later.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the City had little to do with Somerset. A friend went to live near Cambridge recently. After he had lived there for approximately 18 months, he met a military-looking man at a party who said, "I haven't seen you before; where are you from?" My friend replied, "We've been living here for 18 months, but before that we lived in Somerset for several centuries." "Ah, royalists, eh? You'll find we're mainly Cromwellians around here", responded the gentleman from Cambridge. The City of London was firmly on the parliamentary side in the civil war, therefore it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome did not detect much connection between Somerset and the City.

Mr. David Heath: Some of my ancestors were executed in 1685 for taking up the parliamentary cause later than the rest of the country.

Mr. Brooke: I recall the events of 40 years later, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I pursued them.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will have been a Member of Parliament for 50 years later this year. Understandably after 50 years, his memory is playing him marginally false. My father was Home Secretary during the right hon. Gentleman's first 25 years in the House; I have not been Home Secretary during his second 25 years in the House. It is remarkable that I am the third longest sitting Member for the City of London in 717 years. It was represented by four Members of Parliament for most of that time. I have never been Home Secretary, therefore I cannot respond to the aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that referred to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) responded to the heart of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the point about a challenge by a resident in the City. The corporation is anxious

to preserve the ability of wards under the current arrangements—which were endorsed by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member in 1969—to elect residents. The Bill provides for that. What the right hon. Gentleman describes as a corrupt practice is simply the current position in terms of legislation that has prevailed between 1969 and now.
New clause 1 would provide that clause 3 should not take effect until the Secretary of State had made a statement that the Bill was compatible with convention rights, which are defined in amendment No. 22 as having the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has raised the human rights convention on several previous occasions. Every time that has been done, the Chair has made the technical position clear. In drafting the Bill, the promoters followed that position. Nevertheless, I shall explain it.
8.15 pm
Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act states:
A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights"—
the Act calls that a "statement of compatibility"—
or
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The section goes on to say that the statement should be in writing and published in a manner that the Minister who makes it considers appropriate. We are now familiar with the practice of including the ministerial statement on the front page of Government Bills.
The scope of the section 19 is clear. It applies to public Bills—I readily acknowledge that the hon. Member for Thurrock made that clear—but it does not apply to private Members' Bills, private Bills or secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take the view that the requirement of section 19 should be extended. The point was recently debated in another place in relation to secondary legislation.

Mr. John Cryer: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but does he argue that the convention should not apply to private Bills? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, when Bills become legislation, there is no difference between a private and a public Bill.

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which he makes fairly. However, that is a general policy issue on which I am not expressing an opinion.
In response to the question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I shall state what the City of London Corporation has already done and determined in relation to the Bill and the convention within the current parameters of the law.

Mr. McDonnell: I want briefly to clarify one of the right hon. Gentleman's points. In one of the points of order that I made, I said that the Bill could be defined as


having a Minister in charge of it. It would therefore be in the remit of section 19 of the 1998 Act, which states:
A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill … must".
Successive Ministers have so vehemently promoted the Bill that it could be construed that they were in charge of it. They should therefore make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for that intervention. I am not envious of those on the Treasury Bench, but under the conventions of the House, I am in charge of the Bill and, therefore, the hon. Member who has to make appropriate concessions or statements on behalf of the promoters.
The point that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) made is a general policy issue, not a matter for the promoters. I hope that Labour Members agree that it is inappropriate for a private Bill to extend the scope of section 19 of the 1998 Act. New clause 1 would have that effect.
The hon. Member for Thurrock raised a series of contingencies about the Attorney-General. Standing Orders on private business require the deposit of the Bill with the Attorney-General. The Bill was so deposited and the Attorney-General is not ignorant of it. He is entitled to submit a report—such reports are submitted at Committee stage—on any private Bill. The Attorney-General's office has submitted no report on the Bill. Having given the explanation about section 19, I make it clear that the promoters of the Bill and their lawyers have examined the human rights convention more than once. That examination has failed to reveal a contravention.
I appreciate that new clause 1 seeks an opinion from the Secretary of State, and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I put on the record, as for a Government Bill, the opinion of the promoters that no contravention of the convention rights arises from the Bill's provisions. That answers the question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Mr. Tony Benn: On that point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has completed his remarks, unless he says otherwise.

Mr. Brooke: I was seeking to make those the final remarks in my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. John McDonnell: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has tabled the new clause and congratulate him on doing so. I have raised compliance with the human rights convention on three occasions, including today. The previous occasion was the carry-over debate in November. Despite the fact that the matter has been taken seriously by the House and by the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the discussions, unfortunately, it has been dismissed somewhat lightly by the Government. I need to clarify that the Bill is Government promoted. In every debate, a Minister has taken responsibility for ensuring that it proceeds. Although we are informed that the vote is unwhipped, on

many occasions we have been told that the Government want to see the business through and an informal Whip has been applied. I find that disgraceful.
I simply say to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that none of our debates on this important issue have been delaying mechanisms. I agree that we should defeat the Bill in the Lobby and believe that, had there been a genuinely free vote, this piece of detritus would have been thrown out long ago. The human rights new clause is critical, though dismissed by the Government. I shall sit down at any stage to allow my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene from the Front Bench so that we can hear the Government's views on whether the Bill complies with the human rights convention.
The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) chaired the Committee that examined the Bill at length, and a number of my colleagues were also involved in that scrutiny. When I raised compliance with the human rights convention in a point of order during our debate on 14 July, he said:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be relevant to report to the House that, as Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the Bill—we spent several days on it and heard petitioners—I can confirm that that issue was not raised by any of the petitioners and did not come before the Committee at any stage.
I regret that that statement was made, because it is wrong. I would seek an adjournment of the House, if necessary, to ask the hon. Gentleman, who is not in his usual place, to comment on those remarks. I should have informed him that I would raise this matter, and I apologise to him and the House for not doing so, but I genuinely thought that the Chairman of the Committee would have been present, as he has been for previous debates.

Mr. Syms: As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), as Committee Chairman, pointed out on 14 July that that issue was not taken up by either of the petitioners in Committee, although it formed part of the evidence—the original petition—lodged by Mr. Malcolm Matson.

Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to read the quote from the hon. Member for Wantage again, I shall do so. He did not say that. He said that
I can confirm that that issue was not raised by any of the petitioners and did not come before the Committee at any stage."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 464.]
I do not like to contradict him when he is not in his place, but he was the Chairman of the Committee. I should be happy to seek an adjournment to enable him to come forward and say why he made that statement. I understand the difficulties of chairing a Committee of that sort, but a central element of Mr. Matson's petition concerned human rights. It drew attention to the fact that the Bill contravened his human rights, which is why I welcome the debate.
The petition by Malcolm John Matson said:
Your Petitioner is a resident and Freeman of the City of London and although entitled to a vote in City elections, he is effectively disenfranchised (together with all other residents) because of the continuation of an unfair property qualification whereby control of his local authority and of all the normal functions of local government (e.g health, education, planning etc.) rests with individuals who do not live in the City of London.


Your Petitioner and his rights and interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons amongst others hereinafter appearing.
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the petition draw attention to the breaches of the earlier charter establishing the corporation, which was granted by Edward III in 1341, and paragraph 8 states:
The Bill, if enacted, will be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular, Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
That was drawn to the attention of the Committee in the petition, but the Chairman informed the House that at no time was it brought before the Committee and at no time debated.
I am happy to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of the House on how we can redress the misleading of the House. The premise of all our debates has been that the human rights contravention was discussed in Committee. Only as a result of the tabling of the new clause tonight and the various points of order that I have raised have we identified the fact that the House was misled, no matter how innocently. I know the hon. Member for Wantage to be a conscientious Member and Committee Chairman, but no matter how innocently the House was misled it is pot enough to say that the Bill's contravention of human rights was not discussed by the Committee. He and other members of the Committee failed to draw that matter from the petition and seek advice.
Perhaps the Committee sought to discuss the matter in secret session, but was advised by Officers of the House that it did not come before the Committee as a relevant matter. That is not what we have been informed. We have been advised tonight by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that at no stage did the Attorney-General intervene to advise the members of the Committee or the House that the Bill contravened the 1998 Act. I believe that, when a matter is before a Committee and a petitioner has drawn attention to a specific issue, it is for the Committee to seek such advice. The Chairman of the Committee, therefore, has a specific responsibility. When a petitioner has placed such an important matter before the Committee, he should seek the advice of Officers of the House and, when dealing with specific legislation such as the Bill, he should seek the advice of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Mackinlay: On whether the Bill was somehow canvassed with the Attorney-General and whether it swept across his desk, every Bill is considered by the Law Officers. Although they considered Bills before we passed the 1998 Act, that legislation specifically says that they have to consider human rights. The fact that the Bill might have crossed the Attorney-General's desk is immaterial—he was not charged, nor asked for his opinion on that specific point.

Mr. McDonnell: That emphasises the point that I want to draw out. My view is that procedure on the Bill has been such that, without points of order being raised and without the new clause being tabled, we would have been remiss in our duty and certainly liable under the European convention on human rights. We may still be so if the Bill proceeds unamended.
The new clause is vital because it protects hon. Members and Officers of the House from prosecution under the European convention on human rights, a

matter which I raised in an intervention on a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. Hon. Members may feel that the usual protections of the House are sufficient to protect them under the convention, but I do not agree. Such overarching supra-national and international treaties into which we have entered, with their global rights, duties and legal responsibilities, are rapidly undermining national protections and immunities. The best example of that is the recent case of General Pinochet. An individual country may seek to give immunity to one of its elected members—in the case of General Pinochet, a non-elected senatorial member—but international rights established in law exist and will, therefore, hopefully be enforced.
8.30 pm
I am not trying to suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Bill is passed you will be arrested on your next trip to France or Spain, or wherever you and your family take your next holiday. I am trying to make the point that localised immunities are not sufficient. They are no longer enforceable. Therefore, we must be sure beyond doubt that, at every stage in our deliberations, legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights. On this occasion we have not even examined that matter, let alone been convinced.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I apologise for not being present for the earlier part of the debate, but I was here for the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech, and I have been listening with considerable interest. Does my hon. Friend agree that, under article 33 on inter-state cases, any party or person could take the City of London Corporation to the European Court if it was found to be in breach of article 3 of the protocol, which is the right to free elections? What has been built in here, which does not seem to have been considered, is, literally, a gain in terms of litigation, which will give rise to a number of cases in future. Should not that be avoided at all costs?

Mr. McDonnell: I shall deal with that later. I repeat that it behoves us as individual Members and as a corporate body—a Chamber—to ensure that all legislation complies with the European convention on human rights. That is why we enacted the legislation in November 1998.
We have not had the advice of Officers of the House or members of the Government to enable us to come to a view, on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report, on whether the legislation complies with that convention. The new clause could provide us with some protection, but I doubt that it will. It is a long-stop. It is a post-action protection. Although supportable tonight, it would have been better had the Bill been withdrawn and properly drafted.
I want to dwell for a moment on the general question of private Bill legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must focus his remarks. We are debating a specific new clause. To go outside that and have a general discussion


on the European convention on human rights or the private Bill procedure of the House would be out of order, and so I shall rule.

Mr. McDonnell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is what I seek to avoid.

Mr. Cohen: The new clause and amendment No. 22 are grouped under the heading "Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights". My hon. Friend developed an argument about possible liability under the convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that the Minister might be liable. In the past, when local authorities were in breach of the law, they were subject to district audit, surcharge and punishment, but often when Ministers have been found in British courts to be in breach of the law, they have not been subject to a penalty. Now it will not be the British courts that make a decision, but the European Court. Is my hon. Friend saying that a Minister, or this Parliament as a corporate body, or an unincorporate body, could be subject—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is far too long.

Mr. McDonnell: The point that I was trying to make, perhaps not clearly enough, is that I no longer believe—the Pinochet case shows this—that localised immunities allocated by individual Parliaments or states can provide adequate protection when human rights have been contravened. Individual Ministers and all hon. Members are liable for their own action. On that basis, the new clause may provide us with limited protection. The new clause seeks to ensure that the Bill does not become an Act until we have a clear statement from the Attorney-General or another Law Officer on behalf of the Government that the Bill does not contravene the human rights convention.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that I appreciate the City of London Corporation giving its legal opinion. I would welcome a copy of that opinion and the name of the counsel who provided it. However, it is somewhat discourteous not to circulate that opinion in advance, given that this matter has been raised on three separate occasions in the past 12 months.
The point of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to ensure that all of us—officers of the House, Members of Parliament and Ministers—are given independent advice in which we can have confidence. Had we had a statement from the Attorney-General, or had the matter at least been referred to him during the Committee stage, we would have had some response that we could have taken into account in the debates.

Mr. Bermingham: Would it surprise my hon. Friend to learn that the courts throughout the land are being advised by the Lord Chancellor's Department to implement article 6 of the European convention before 1 October in decisions that they are currently making? After 1 October, there will be no problems. Would it not be logical for Ministers to examine the convention and implement it in their legislation?

Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters and in the

law, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provided that, in advance of the formal implementation of the European convention on human rights in British legislation later this year, Ministers could show compliance on the front of a Bill. That is pertinent to this new clause. We were hoping that acceptance of the new clause would enable that provision to be incorporated not in private legislation generally—I accept that—but in this specific legislation, because of the concerns that have been expressed about it on both sides of the House.
In our debates, it has been noticeable that few, if any, Members of Parliament have defended the existing system. Few, if any, have defended the reforms. Some Ministers have said that this may be a staging post on the road to further reform, but have not defended the current proposals in their own right.
The rationale for the new clause is that the 1998 Act does not apply to private Bills. Section 19 on statements of compatibility does not apply to private Bills. We have had rulings on that from the Speaker, and we accept that. Therefore, we must propose an amendment, such as the new clause, to each private Bill to see whether it is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
Section 19 of the Act is specific. It states:
A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
…make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
We raised this matter on Second Reading, and the Committee discussed it to see whether the Bill is in contravention of the convention. Section 19 continues:
or … make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
We had a statement from the Minister that the Government wished the House to proceed with the Bill, but that was not in relation to compliance with the convention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating arguments. He must direct his remarks to whether or not the new clause should be accepted by the House. It relates specifically to the Bill and the proposed action by the Secretary of State. I do not want to hear the arguments that I have heard already more than once this evening being repeated yet again—otherwise I shall have to invoke Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. McDonnell: I am not entirely sure what Standing Order No. 42 is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will find out if he persists in straying from the subject of the new clause.

Mr. McDonnell: I think that that is what they call an object lesson, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is crucial for us to know whether the Bill contravenes article 3 of the first protocol before it is enacted, for several reasons. For one thing, if we do not know that, we shall become liable. As was made clear in our debate on the European convention, article 3 has crucial implications. It requires Governments who signed the


convention to support and promote free and fair elections. In our view—no Minister can contend that the selling and purchasing of votes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to deal with the substance of the Bill, and with arguments that we have already heard. The new clause is specifically directed at action demanded by the Secretary of State to deal with a specific situation, and the reasons underlying why that might be necessary have been rehearsed many times.

Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to debate the new clause without exploring all the ramifications of the Bill in the context of the convention. If only to protect ourselves in the future, we should all say why we consider the new clause to be so critical, because saying whether the Bill contravenes the convention will be important in ensuring that none of us are liable in the future.
I want to be assured that any record of today's debate makes plain my sincere belief that the Bill does contravene the convention. On that basis, if the new clause is not accepted, I want it to be clear when the legislation is tested—if it is passed—in any action against individual Members or Officers that I am not liable. I want it to be clear that I did not support the Bill at any stage, but supported the new clause to try to ensure that it would not be enacted before a statement had been made about whether it contravened the convention.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is often overlooked by Parliament. In December 1998, the court made a decision in Pepper v. someone or other—I cannot remember the name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hart."] Thank you. The decision was that the courts would now look not only to the intention of Ministers, but to what lay behind a Bill, and to the intention that Parliament then had. If the intention of Parliament is to flout legislation that is about to be enacted, surely no court will uphold the contents of—in the present instance—this Bill.

Mr. McDonnell: That, too, is a valid point. I believe that, if the House rejects the new clause tonight and a change is made later, tonight's discussions can be prayed in aid with regard to our joint responsibility for promoting legislation in this way. My point, however, is that we are jointly, severally and individually liable for our actions. I believe that, unless the new clause is passed tonight, we as a Chamber will be liable for contravention of the convention. I want to make it plain that I was not party to the decision, and I support the new clause in order to prevent any future contravention in the legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the selling and purchasing of votes is not just corrupt, but contravenes the European convention on human rights.
8.45 pm
The demand for the new clause to go through goes beyond the protection of individual residents of the City of London Corporation. If the Bill goes through, it will enable a breach of the human rights not just of corporation residents, but of my constituents.
Under the Greater London Authority legislation, the City of London Corporation is treated as any other London borough in consultation and development of policies by the new structure for London government: the London mayor and Greater London Authority. Under a range of policy areas, the mayor is required in law to consult the corporation on the development of those policies. Therefore, the introduction of further selling of the business vote undermines the human rights not just of corporation residents, but of my constituents. In that corrupt way, the corporation will be elected and will influence London wide policy.
The ramifications for the human rights of the whole of London's population should be not only debated, discussed and examined by the House, but, under the new clause, considered by the Attorney-General. The new clause would enable the Attorney-General to consider the matter before the Bill's enactment. I hope that it would allow a report to be brought before the House—I believe that that is what was understood by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—and a thorough debate to take place. The thorough debate would revolve around whether the Bill complied with the provisions in the European convention on human rights on the free expression of the opinion of the people.

Mr. Mackinlay: My new clause does not provide for a report to come back, but that would be ideal. Ideally, both the promoters and the Minister would get the mood of the House and suggest that we abandon tonight's proceedings, or adjourn, and ask for a report. However, failing that, my new clause would mean that the Act could not be triggered until such time as the matter had been brought back.

Mr. McDonnell: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but if a report is not brought back under the new clause, the House will not be able to discuss the validity of the Attorney-General's views. At least under section 19 of the Human Rights Act a statement is made. I was hoping that the new clause would enable at least some report to the House. If it does not, it may need further discussion and amendment later. I would welcome the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to rise to his feet to withdraw the Bill for redrafting, but I have gone beyond that hopeful stage. I can see that you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beyond that stage.
There are implications not just for City of London Corporation residents, but for all the constituents of Greater London. That is why I as an individual Member of Parliament for a London constituency think that the issue is critical.
I appreciate that, under the Human Rights Act, there is an opportunity for a get-out clause. It has not been referred to, but I will draw that out briefly. Section 10(2) of the Act provides for remedial orders, which, in layman's terms, give the Government an opportunity to come back. If the Government have got legislation wrong and are found by the European Court to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights, they will be able to issue a remedial order. That order gets individual Ministers off the hook, not that I am particularly bothered about that at this stage. It enables us all, I suppose, to express a view with regard to liability. However, the new clause would obviate the necessity for such remedial orders. I believe that if the Bill were passed, a remedial order would clearly be required.
Consequently, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to consider the new clause's potential and the Government's ability eventually to promote a remedial order. My hon. Friend may want to enter discussions with Ministers on the drafting of relevant remedial orders, should the new clause be passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ahead of himself. The substance of new clause 1 is to call upon the Secretary of State to make a statement to the effect that, in his view,
the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights.
That is the limit of new clause 1. Even if the new clause were approved by the House, it would not debar someone later from challenging a statement of the Secretary of State. Therefore, we should be considering not remedial orders, but, right now, whether a statement will even be made.

Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there will be no opportunity to challenge any statement made under the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has just clarified, the statement would not be a report to the House. The problem with the new clause is that, even if it were passed, it would provide no procedure for a report or statement to be made to the House. As my hon. Friend has advised me, however, although the new clause is not intended to provide such a procedure, the use of such a procedure should be considered.
If a statement is not made to the House for debate, and if the Government are subsequently found to be remiss and in contravention of the convention, remedial orders will be required and all hon. Members will be complicit in contravening the human rights legislation. That is the logic that I am following in the debate.
I should be quite happy to engage in a dialogue or discussion with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on how the matter might best be dealt with. Today, however, I urge the House to proceed no further with the new clause. None the less, if we divide on it, I shall vote for it, as it would at least provide a fall-back position.
Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is very specific on what is lawful and what is unlawful. I am therefore at a loss to understand why the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), has not yet intervened to say whether the Government have considered the issues and the Bill, so that a statement might be made in accordance with the new clause.
As I have made very clear, I believe that we could act differently by throwing out the Bill and starting again with a more democratic Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. However, not only is he repeating himself within the space of a very few minutes, but he is again ignoring my advice that he cannot revert to how the Bill is being dealt with. We are dealing with one simple matter: new clause 1.

Mr. McDonnell: I was going to finish my sentence by saying, "because of its offence against the human rights legislation", and that I support new clause 1.
I also pray in aid some of the work that we have been doing on human rights legislation in relation to local government around the world. Recently, a conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association permitted us to examine and debate the human rights role and responsibilities of individual member states of the European Union and of the Commonwealth. New clause 1 is intended to ensure that the Government address the human rights issue by including in the Bill a requirement for them to make a statement, and it accords with some of the work being done by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
At the conference, Richard Bourne, chairman of the Commonwealth human rights—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would accept an allusion, but we will not have a full discussion of that conference, which is quite outside the scope of the amendment.

Mr. McDonnell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have respected your views throughout the debate, and you have been kind to me in every debate into which I have entered. However, with the greatest respect, you are not to judge whether I was about to make an allusion or a full statement on the matter, because I had not made it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must have a care about challenging the rulings of the Chair. He was about to launch into further references to the conference. I think that he had made a sufficient allusion to it in support of his general argument, which was therefore in order. However, I have had to remind the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions of the specific matter that we are discussing. He has repeated himself several times, using the same words over and over again. That is causing me to repeat myself in calling him to order. The hon. Gentleman should respect the rulings that I have given from the Chair, and ensure that the remainder of his remarks is strictly within the terms of the new clause. Otherwise, I shall have to invoke Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. McDonnell: The discussion at the Commonwealth human rights conference was clear about the huge role that Governments had to play in the protection of citizens' human rights and the promotion of local tenets of democracy. The new clause would enable the Government to make a statement, before we proceed further with the Bill, that they value local democracy, value and uphold democratic rights and, on that basis, believe that we are not in contravention of the European convention on human rights. In my view, we are. In my view, we tread a dangerous path. It is my contention that all legislation should comply with the European convention, and private Bills should not be exempt. On that basis, I support the new clause.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) gave the House an assurance that the promoters of the Bill had found no contravention of convention rights, but he has been challenged by hon. Members to say where that advice came from. That is a very important issue, for this reason.
I do not wish to construe article 3—the right to free elections—bearing in mind your earlier constraints, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it could be said in relation to article 3 that if the lawyers who advised the promoters of the Bill on this point had offices in the City of London, they could have had a vested interest in giving their opinion. If, for example, those lawyers have huge, swish offices in one of the more upmarket parts of the City, the rateable value of their property may be several millions of pounds.

Mr. Peter Bradley: And several votes.

Mr. Dismore: Several hundred votes, I say to my hon. Friend. Under schedule 1, each million pounds works out at 100 votes.
It may be that those lawyers thought that this Bill could be a good Bill for lawyers. The City of London sometimes has policies concerning what the legal profession should be up to in the City, and I have expressed criticisms of City lawyers in other debates. Those lawyers may well come to the view that the City should be doing more to promote the interests of lawyers and, by packing the vote with several hundred of their nominated electors could influence the outcome of City of London policy through the election procedures that we are being asked to approve tonight. Those who may have been asked to advise on the Bill may have had a vested interest in saying that it does not contravene the European convention on human rights.

Mr. McDonnell: On that basis, does my hon. Friend agree that it behoves the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to publish that opinion this evening—even if it is only laid around the House—and the name of the counsel who gave that opinion?

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as it is essential that we know who gave that advice and whether the lawyers involved, for example, already have representatives on the corporation of London. There may already be common councillors or City aldermen from that law firm. There may be a close connection between the lawyers advising the City and the City itself. If we could see the opinion, we could determine whether the views on articles 2 and 3 were correct. We could also check whether it was obtained fairly, and properly given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) noted that, besides the firm of solicitors to which I referred, leading counsel may also be involved.

9 pm

Mr. Bermingham: Is not the date of the advice relevant also? Opinion in respect of validity and compliance has changed rapidly over the past 18 months. An opinion that is two or three years old may be worthless.

Mr. Dismore: One of the problems of the Human Rights Act 1998 is that it contains no definitions to help construe the terms of the articles of the European convention. My hon. Friend makes an important point. There has been an awful lot of case law recently, and the interpretation of the convention has developed alongside

it. I am sorry to say that, once or twice, British Governments have been found to be in contravention when they had considered that to be unlikely.

Mr. Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer, and will know that one gets the advice that one pays for. Would it not be useful to see the instructions on which the advice that we are discussing was based?

Mr. Dismore: Yes. My hon. Friend and I used be members of Westminster city council. We were often shown legal opinions, and then we got wise to asking to see the instructions on which they were based. That was illuminating, as we discovered that one gets the answers to the questions that one poses.
I should like to know whether the lawyers were asked to advise on the definition of "free" in article 3. The word could mean fair, or that something does not have to be paid for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) noted earlier, the Bill would make people pay for votes. For example, a person at odds with the City of London's policy on joining the euro might rent or buy some buildings to get a few votes in elections in the City, in the hope that he would be able to influence City policy. Several millionaires with a firm view on that matter may decide to spend their money on mounting such an attempt.
I should also like to know whether the lawyers were instructed to construe the phrase "free expression", which appears in article 3.

Mr. Bermingham: If I were a multi-millionaire—and I am not, being a practising lawyer—and bought property in the City worth millions of pounds, I could vote there and I would also have all my property votes. Why should my property votes, which would have been purchased, be worth more than my human votes, which I would have earned by residence?

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid intervention. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will reveal the contents of the lawyers' opinion, and the instructions that they were given.
Before my hon. Friend intervened, I referred to the term "free expression" in article 3. I think that that term should mean that people can put their crosses wherever they choose on the ballot paper. However, the people who will be asked to exercise their "free expression" will be nominated by a qualifying body—in other words, their employers. I can envisage that people will mark their ballot papers in a way that they know will please their employers.
That practice harks back to the old days of the rotten boroughs, when people were required to vote in the way preferred by their squire. The City is run by the third millennium's squirearchy, and the Bill would enable them to tell their underlings how to vote. I should like to know whether the lawyers who advise the City were asked to construe the definition of "free expression" in that context.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an example of the perfect political Whip, effectively saying, "If you don't vote the right way, you're out."?

Mr. Dismore: This goes beyond what my hon. Friend says; in this House, if one votes against the Whip—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject. He must keep within the terms of the new clause before us.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was perhaps getting a little carried away in responding to my hon. Friend's intervention, because I thought that he made a valid point.
My point follows the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). It goes back to the main defence against the new clause proposed by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster: that a legal opinion was obtained saying that this piece of legislation complied with the European convention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause that I am referring to was moved by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Is that the new clause that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is discussing?

Mr. Dismore: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. You were not in the Chamber earlier, but you are quite right in that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made the point in support of his new clause. However, in responding on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made the point that the new clause was not necessary because a legal opinion had been obtained by the City that it complied with the European convention, and that we did not have to worry.
I am questioning whether that legal opinion has any validity for the purposes of our debate, bearing in mind that we have yet to see it, as well as seeing the instructions. The instructions to the City lawyers may simply have said, "Let us know whether this complies with the European convention" without drawing attention to the specific points that I have raised.

Mr. Tony Benn: Could my hon. Friend advise me? Let us suppose that the Bill is taken to the European court under the convention. The first question to the Attorney-General will be, "Did you consider the Bill?" We are told by the promoter of the Bill that the Attorney-General did not; we are told that he has not responded. The Attorney-General will be unable to say that he has never thought of it because all these debates have highlighted that point, and still we have a silent Attorney. That must make Britain much more vulnerable if, as is almost certain, the Act—as it will be—is taken to a court for consideration.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The phrase "silent Attorney" is probably a contradiction in terms, but I get the drift of his remarks. If the Bill were challenged in the European courts, Her Majesty's Government, especially the Attorney-General, would be on the receiving end, not the City of London. If

the Attorney-General and the Government have not considered that, and without the new clause being incorporated and any view being reported back to the House for debate, the Government could be buying a pig in a poke.

Mr. David Heath: Is not the most extraordinary thing about the debate the fact that no duty is placed on the Bill's promoter or, indeed, on the corporation of the City of London? The duty is placed on the Secretary of State. The Minister could have curtailed this entire discussion by simply accepting the implied duty that would have been placed on him by legislation promoted by the Government.

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. When we vote on Third Reading, we must be sure that the Bill complies with the convention. If not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we could accidentally be in breach of the European convention, simply because we had accepted the word of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very decent chap; I am sure that he is very well versed in these matters. He may well have seen the legal opinion, although I do not know whether he has.
Today, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the City of London Corporation had obtained an opinion that the measure does not breach the European convention. Will he tell us whether he has read that legal opinion and the instructions that gave rise to it? I should be happy to give way to him. Before I gave way to a series of interventions, the main thrust of my argument concerned whether those instructions directed the lawyers properly to the questions that they should consider in construing article 3 and other provisions in relation to the European convention.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned—I think in error—that there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter on Third Reading if such a statement were made. The new clause would not enable the Third Reading to take into account a statement by the Attorney-General; it would apply merely before the provisions of the Act come into force. As I tried to point out, despite being interrupted several times, we will not have an opportunity to debate any statement because it will not be made until after the House has dealt with the Bill. Based on that, we are jointly and severally liable for whatever happens in due course.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps that is why when the Bill reaches Third Reading—irrespective of whether the new clause is accepted—we should vote against it anyway. There is a strong argument that the Bill is an extremely bad one.

Mr. Cohen: As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) has pointed out, our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a distinguished lawyer, whose expertise is most valuable to the House.

Mr. McDonnell: It is free.

Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon tell us whether, in these circumstances, it is usual


for a body such as the City of London to consult counsel on one specific point? Would that show that the body was worried about that particular point? In my hon. Friend's opinion, by not publishing the advice and by insisting on secrecy, does that not show there might be something fishy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), because he has made an interesting intervention. It goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin as to the importance of the instructions. Those instructions might well reveal the motivation behind obtaining the opinion. They might reveal that the City was not only worried, but may also have had its own view on the matter, which the lawyers were asked to consider.
If we are to vote against the new clause, not only do we need the assurances of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the City has found that particular opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman should put his money where his mouth is, or rather the City—for whom he speaks—should do so: we should see the legal opinion and the instructions on which it is based. We should see that before we proceed much further with the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity to intervene on me and on other hon. Members to say, on behalf of the City, that the legal advice and instructions would be made public. He could have said, "We have nothing to hide. We are happy that we obtained the legal opinion in good faith". He could have told us that the City had instructed the lawyers at great length to address the points that I made in relation to article 3 and other provisions that could be contravened by the Bill. We would all be happy about that. Indeed, if we had that opinion, some of us might be prepared to show a copy to the Attorney-General in the Lobby—although of course we cannot do so because he is in another place.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had an extensive debate on the legal opinion that the City of London Corporation has sought and obtained. We know that it exists because of the statement by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). What procedure may we now take so as to adjourn the House to enable the right hon. Gentleman to circulate that legal opinion before the debate continues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate, and we cannot adjourn the House on the basis of what has been debated. We must allow the debate to continue.

Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That raises the interesting

possibility that there may be a multiplicity of legal opinions, and that the promoters are being coy because the City favours only one of those opinions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself too much with what legal opinion the promoters took, because the main matter before us is the new clause that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). That is all that we should concern ourselves with.

Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason why we have been considering the issue of the opinion obtained by the City is that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, in moving that the new clause be read a Second time, argued very strongly that we had no legal advice before us.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please do not think me unkind. If the Chair has just ruled that we must think only about the new clause and not about the opinion, is that not a bit like a look-out on the Titanic being told that he is sailing the Atlantic and to ignore the icebergs?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I used to work in a shipyard, I do not know a great deal about the Titanic, but I would tell the hon. Gentleman that, while it is allowable to refer to the opinion that was sought by the City of London, hon. Members' harping on about it at great length concerns me. That is why I am telling the hon. Gentleman that we can move on now. The point has been made that the City of London has sought legal advice in this matter. I think that we all seek legal advice from time to time, but that point has been made, so perhaps we can move on.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We understand that, if the new clause were incorporated into the Bill, the Secretary of State, in making a statement, would seek the Attorney-General's opinion. The problem that we have in the House is that we cannot seek the Attorney-General's opinion because he is not a Member of this House. The Attorney-General does not attend Attorney-General's questions; the Solicitor-General attends in his place. I certainly would not say that the Solicitor-General is not a distinguished lawyer, but he is not the Attorney-General.
The answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was that that did not matter, because the City had obtained its legal opinion. I would simply say that if we had that opinion, we could judge for ourselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would say that there is such a thing as tedious repetition, and I would say that the hon. Gentleman is straying on that because he has mentioned that point. Before I entered the Chamber, the point was also mentioned by one of his hon. Friends, so we cannot belabour it. We have the new clause before us. If the hon. Gentleman is running out of things to say, it may be time to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During those exchanges, I was able to take a


look at "Erskine May". May I draw your attention to page 388? I am sure that you are very familiar with that particular page. There are no pictures in it, but it does relate to this point. I raise it on a point of order, addressing it through you to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). It says:
There is no rule to prevent Members not connected with the Government from citing documents in their possession, both public and private, which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts.
However, footnote 9 says:
A private Member's action in handing a document to a Minister in support of arguments was ruled to be 'very irregular'".
Although that footnote related to the handing of documents by a Back Bencher to a Minister, it would be reasonable to assume that, similarly, it was highly irregular for the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to hand over documents and not bring them to the attention of the whole House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just read out a very interesting quotation from "Erskine May".

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that Select Committees and the House have the power to insist that both people and papers are brought before them when that is relevant. I submit that it is relevant to receive counsel's advice before the debate is concluded. May I put it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The question of bringing people or documents before the House is not a matter for debate. We are now debating the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order. I get the feeling that some hon. Members are seeking to prolong the debate. [Interruption.] Order. I have dealt with points of order and not one of them was a proper point of order. Some hon. Members are testing the patience of the Chair.

Mr. McDonnell: Of course, I would not do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, may I give notice, on a point of order, that we shall table a substantive motion in the House requiring the production of the document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; the hon. Gentleman can do whatever he wants. I call the hon. Member for Hendon to resume his speech, but if he has nothing to say other than to repeat the case that he has already made, he must sit down.

Mr. Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have quite a few other points to make about the new clause.
First, if we had the Attorney-General's opinion, it would provide a much stronger basis on which we could proceed with the Bill.

Mr. John Cryer: Let us leave aside the legal opinion for a minute. If this Act were challenged in the courts,

does my hon. Friend think it conceivable that the courts would not consider the House's deliberations this evening?

Mr. Dismore: If such matters came before the courts—the High Court, the House of Lords or, beyond that, the European Court of Human Rights—it is inevitable that, under the provisions of Pepper v. Hart, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, the courts would consider what was said in the House. If the Government did not provide the certificate sought by the new clause and appeared before the court—the Government and not the City would defend the legal action—they would be in great difficulty given the points made in the debate.
Because of earlier rulings, we are not able to draw the House's attention to the detailed breaches that were alleged in relation to the Bill, but we can at least make it absolutely clear that, in the absence of a certificate from the Secretary of State, many of us have reservations. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to give a certificate, that would go a long way towards satisfying me. I would know that the opinion would be based on the opinion of the Attorney-General, for whom I have great regard.

Mr. Bermingham: If a certificate were given, not only would my hon. Friend be satisfied, but so would I. However, bearing in mind the rulings that already exist under articles 34 and 33 and protocols 3 and 7 of the convention, we need to know on what basis the certificate would be given.

Mr. Dismore: The matter goes beyond that. The new clause would not prevent a legal challenge being made even if a certificate were given. The purpose of a certificate is not to provide one with a cast-iron defence in the courts or a public immunity defence. It would simply reassure the House that the Bill complied with the European convention. It is not a defence to go to court and say, "Well, we've got a certificate so you can't sue us," but the certificate would reassure us.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend further agree that, if the certificate and the reasons behind it were given, we could see whether or not the Government had concluded that a certificate could be given and, therefore, whether or not they thought the Bill was a bad Bill—which is what we have been saying for the past two and a half hours?

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If such a point were read into the proceedings of the House, it could also be raised during a legal challenge under the precedent set by Pepper v. Hart. If the issue were to appear before the courts, not the City but the Government would be in the dock.
This point is particularly important when one considers the convention. For illustrative purposes, we have all focused on article 3—the right to free elections—but other articles, such as article 2 on the right to education, are even more important. I shall certainly not go through the construction of that article, because there is a risk that it could be contravened by the Bill. Suffice it to say that there are reservations in the context of the Human Rights Act.
I can see the most bizarre position developing whereby no certificate has been given; somebody challenges whether proper education is being provided in the City of London; the Government end up in the dock and there is some reservation—without any great thought about whether article 2 is contravened by the Bill. We would suddenly find ourselves in the most horrendous legal mess in trying to interpret the position.
New clause 1 is very much needed. It would give the House great reassurance that the Bill complies with the convention—or, to adopt the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South, that it does not do so. When we are asked to give the Bill a Third Reading, that should be very much to the forefront of our minds.

Mr. McDonnell: Legal advice is being bandied across the Chamber—unpublished or not—but will my hon. Friend clarify that his main thrust is that it is essential that we achieve protection in some form? What would be the consequences of not having such protection under the new clause?

Mr. Dismore: The most obvious consequence will be that the House will have passed legislation that does not comply with the European convention on human rights or with our own Human Rights Act. That in itself would have other consequences—in addition to the Government's perhaps looking rather foolish because they would have been found in contravention of the legislation in the European Court.
I mentioned earlier that our Government have been caught out by the European Court on only a couple of occasions in three years—which is not bad when compared with the previous Government's record. I certainly hope that our Government continue to maintain their very good record on the convention.

Mr. Bermingham: Would not the consequences of being caught out be having to agree under the terms of settlement to compensate and to rectify? The cost of rectification in this case would be enormous.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct. One problem is that the City is very much a law unto itself—that is why trying to reform it is difficult. We may end up with huge legal bills and having to pay compensation bills for infringing people's rights. We may have to try to unstitch decisions in the City and hold new elections there, having first passed better legislation that incorporates one person, one vote, rather than one building, one vote. I very much hope that the Government will take on board the fact that the consequences could be horrendous, and will either ensure that new clause 1 is agreed to so that we have an opinion, or prevail on the City to release the opinion, so that we can at least check whether we agree with it.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I am worried about the implications of my hon. Friend's comments about legal advice. Can he construe any circumstances in which such

advice may be given to justify, for example, the constitution of the upper Chamber on the basis of property ownership rather than democratic franchise?

Mr. Dismore: I am very tempted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We could not stray into those matters under this narrow new clause.

Mr. McDonnell: rose—

Mr. Dismore: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Mr. McDonnell: The issue of consequences has been raised and I can understand that the residents of the City of London—or, as a result of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the residents of Greater London—would be the offended party, but who would bear the cost? It would not be the City of London Corporation any more because the Bill would become a public Act, and because the Government have not intervened—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already heard the hon. Gentleman make that point. He cannot go over it again.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In conclusion—

Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way on one brief point? The whole thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is that the House needs the statement from the Secretary of State; otherwise the whole matter could be taken to the European Court. He knows that there is to be a mayor elected for the rest of London. Does he think that the mayor might—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. The problem with legal challenges is that, if the Bill is not in compliance with human rights legislation, such a challenge could come from any quarter and be made in any court. However, I think that my hon. Friend slightly misunderstands my earlier point, which is that legal challenge is possible, whether or not there is a certificate of compliance. All such a certificate does is reassure the House that the chance of such a challenge being made is small.
A challenge could come from the mayor or the Greater London Authority, from a resident of the City or a business in the City, or from any aggrieved person with a remote interest in the City. That is why new clause 1 is so important. Even if there were a broad consensus in support of the Bill, some mischievous individual might attempt to unpick it by pursuing lengthy legal proceedings through the courts. We all know how long it can take a case to go though the lower courts, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, before getting to the European Court. The Bill could be the source of litigation lasting 10 or 15 years. In the end, the only beneficiaries would be


lawyers, and it is not the purpose of the House to provide lawyers with a living—even though I should declare an interest in that I am a solicitor.
The new clause is extremely important. The House requires the assurance that it would provide and I hope that it finds favour with hon. Members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for giving the House the necessary assurances on the compatibility of the Bill with convention rights.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: For heaven's sake, give me a chance. Well, even though I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) more than once today, I shall give way to him—although I warn him that it will be the only time that I do so.

Mr. McDonnell: Does the Minister's remark mean that he has seen the legal opinion? If so, why has it not been brought to the House and copied to hon. Members?

Mr. Hill: I have not seen the legal opinion. However, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is an honourable Member. It is his duty as the sponsor of the Bill to give the necessary assurances, and he has done so. I have no intention of impugning his honour or his integrity.

Mr. Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once before, I made the mistake of referring to a Member specifically as the "honourable" Gentleman. I was reprimanded on the basis that all Members are honourable Members, therefore the expression is meaningless.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Minister can express himself any way he pleases, as long as he observes the rules of the House.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me deal with the concerns expressed by various hon. Members about the Secretary of State's involvement, which is the subject of the new clause. We have been debating the new clause for the past two and a half hours, so it does not seem unreasonable that I should make an observation regarding it. The law is entirely clear: the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that, for public Bills, the Minister in charge must make a statement of compatibility with convention rights, or state that he is unable to do so. There is no equivalent requirement for private Bills or private Members' Bills.

Mr. Bermingham: I speak from practical profession experience, going back more than 30 years. Does the Minister accept that the European Court might not care to think about whether legislation is public or private, but that it will think about the rights of the citizen and ask itself one simple question: have the citizen's rights

been infringed? Whether it is a public Bill or a private Bill matters not a tinker's cuss. The European Court will enforce the rights of the convention.

Mr. Hill: I hope to come on to that point in due course.
I am saying that in various incarnations—

Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hill: Just a minute.
In various incarnations I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raise the question of compliance in relation to the Bill. He has done so on several occasions on points of order preceding the Bill's consideration. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during each of the preceding two occasions when the Bill has been discussed the occupant of the Chair has made it clear that there is no provision in legislation or in the rules of the House for making statements of compatibility with convention rights in relation to a private member's Bill or private Bills.
The view has been taken that the issue is one for debate and not for the Chair. The rules of the House are therefore entirely clear on this matter. The guidance from the Chair is also entirely clear, and we are complying with that guidance and with the law.
I take up the issue that was raised initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). It was picked up and danced with by many other hon. Members. The specific issue was the possible future role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Should a court wish to declare an Act incompatible, the Crown is given an opportunity to argue against it. It is our understanding that that is a right and not a requirement. The central point is that under existing legislation it is the sponsor who is required to state his view on compatibility. Parliament can then take a view and amend accordingly if it wishes to do so. A further statement from the Government, either on a private Bill or a private Member's Bill, will not change whether the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. It is Parliament that needs to get the Bill right, not the Minister, not the Government and not the Attorney-General.

Mr. Mackinlay: Are the Government neutral on the new clause? Will there be a free vote for all right hon. and hon. Members, including those who are on the payroll? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no Whips outside the Lobby picketing to ensure that Labour Members turn down the new clause? Can he give us an unequivocal assurance on that?

Mr. Hill: As the Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box, I cannot be responsible for events that occur outside the Chamber. I feel very much responsible for what occurs when I am at the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend has undoubtedly received the Whip during the past few days. My recollection, as I am sure it is his, is that the vote was clearly and unequivocally described as a free vote. If that was on the Whip, I am sure that that will satisfy my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends in the Chamber that it is a free vote.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Indeed, he is truly honourable.
Before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), was he saying that it would be Parliament and Members of Parliament who would be liable if the Bill became an Act and is in breach of the European convention? I can understand that Ministers should not be liable and I sympathise with that point. However, the Bill comes from the City of London. Should not responsibility fall on the City and not on my hon. Friend the Minister or Parliament?

Mr. Hill: Strictly speaking, we are not debating liability in this context. Instead, we are debating where liability lies for a declaration about the compatibility of the Bill with the convention. The fact is that it lies with the sponsor, who has discharged that duty. It would therefore be wholly inappropriate—

Mr. Dismore: rose—

Mr. Peter Bradley: rose—

Mr. Hill: No, I shall not give way. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be asked to make a statement on a Bill for which he has no responsibility. That is a matter for the Bill's promoters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has placed a statement on record on their behalf. That is the proper approach. I hope that his statement is sufficient to satisfy hon. Members, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Brooke: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 68.

Division No. 35]
[9.40 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Collins, Tim


Allen, Graham
Colman, Tony


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cotter, Brian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cran, James


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blunt, Crispin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Dowd, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ennis, Jeff


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ftzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Flight, Howard



Flint, Caroline


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caplin, Ivor
Foulkes, George


Casale, Roger
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gill, Christopher


Coaker, Vernon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa





Green, Damian
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Heald, Oliver
Pearson, Ian


Healey, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Heppell, John
Plaskitt, James


Hill, Keith
Pond, Chris


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howells, Dr Kim
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Quinn, Lawrie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Randall, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
Rendel, David


Hutton, John
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Jamieson, David
Roy, Frank


Jenkins, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Key, Robert
Soley, Clive


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Kirkwood, Archy
Spellar, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Squire, Ms Rachel


Leslie, Christopher
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Levitt, Tom
Stoate, Dr Howard


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Lidington, David
Syms, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lock, David



Loughton, Tim
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Timms, Stephen



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wicks, Malcolm


McNulty, Tony
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mactaggart, Fiona
Wills, Michael


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Meale, Alan



Moriey, Elliot
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. Desmond Swayne and



Sir Peter Emery.




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Hood, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hurst, Alan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Bermingham, Gerald
Illsley, Eric


Berry, Roger
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Best, Harold
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cann, Jamie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Linton, Martin


Clapham, Michael
Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
McDonnell, John


Collins, Tim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Connarty, Michael
McWalter, Tony


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Andrew


Davidson, Ian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Dawson, Hilton
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Dismore, Andrew
Olner, Bill


Dobbin, Jim
Pickthall, Colin


Efford, Clive
Pike, Peter L


Gibson, Dr Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rammell, Bill


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Savidge, Malcolm


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sawford, Phil


Hinchliffe, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)






Skinner, Dennis
Willis, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stunell, Andrew



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tynan, Bill
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Peter Bradley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 120.

Division No. 36]
[9.52 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry
Linton, Martin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
McDonnell, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
McWalter, Tony


Best, Harold
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bradshaw, Ben
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Butler, Mrs Christine
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Miller, Andrew



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Cann, Jamie
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Cawsey, Ian
Olner, Bill


Clapham, Michael
Perham, Ms Linda


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Pickthall, Colin


Connarty, Michael
Pike, Peter L


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pond, Chris


Cotter, Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Cousins, Jim
Rammell, Bill


Crausby, David
Rendel, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Dalyell, Tam
Sanders, Adrian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Sawford, Phil


Davidson, Ian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Dawson, Hilton
Skinner, Dennis


Dismore, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Dobbin, Jim
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Efford, Clive
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stunell, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Hinchliffe, David
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Hood, Jimmy
Tynan, Bill


Hopkins, Kelvin
Wareing, Robert N


Hurst, Alan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Willis, Phil


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Wood, Mike


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Mr. Peter Bradley and


Lepper, David
Mr. Harry Cohen.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brazier, Julian


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Casale, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chidgey, David


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blunt, Crispin



Boswell, Tim
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clwyd, Ann





Coaker, Vernon
Levitt, Tom


Collins, Tim
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Colman, Tony
Lidington, David


Cooper, Yvette
Lock, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Loughton, Tim


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McNulty, Tony


Day, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Dowd, Jim
Mates, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Meale, Alan


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Merron, Gillian


Ennis, Jeff
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Evans, Nigel



Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Flight, Howard
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Flint, Caroline
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Pearson, Ian


Foulkes, George
Pope, Greg


Fox, Dr Liam
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Primarolo, Dawn


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Quinn, Lawrie


Green, Damian
Randall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Robathan, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Healey, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heppell, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Hill, Keith
Ryan, Ms Joan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Soley, Clive


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Howells, Dr Kim
Spellar, John


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Humble, Mrs Joan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hutton, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Jamieson, David
Syms, Robert


Jenkins, Brian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)




Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Keeble, Ms Sally
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Kemp, Fraser
Wills, Michael


Key, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tellers for the Noes:


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mr. Desmond Swayne and


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sir Peter Emery.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
Bill to be further considered on Wednesday 2 February.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Petroleum Royalty Payments) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 22nd February, do adjourn till Monday 28th February 2000.—[Mr. Betts.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Hesford be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Tony Clarke be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

Orders of the Day — Just-in-time Distribution

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I was delighted to be selected to initiate this debate.
During the two and three quarter years I have been a Member, I have observed that Adjournment debates come in all shapes and sizes. Some deal with large issues involving a national or international sweep, and others with very local issues, often pertinent to the constituency of the Members initiating them. My chosen subject does both. On the one hand, it is a large issue that goes to the heart of the well-being of United Kingdom manufacturing and retailing and the competitiveness of the UK economy; on the other, it affects everyone's lives in a detailed and local way. In Southampton, every time I visit Safeway, just down the road from me, I am relying on the just in time system. At Ford, just up the road, every time a production worker turns round to look for a component from the box to, fit the shell of a Transit van, he or she relies on just in time.
Perhaps it is because the factor is all-pervasive that no one notices it. I did a trawl of the number of times that just in time has been mentioned in the House since 1994, and there is virtually no trace; yet the importance of the system is incalculable, and to date has been a source of some pride to the United Kingdom. Indeed the White Paper on sustainable distribution states:
the evidence suggests that the UK is now amongst the world leaders in efficient management of the supply chain, representing an important competitive advantage for UK companies.
How does just in time work? It works on the basis that goods arrive to serve their purpose—display for sale, or entry into the production line—literally just in time, by means of planning the transit of goods from internal source or entry port, via national or regional distribution centre to destination, so that warehousing is eliminated and minimal time is lost in storage.
Recently, that has worked to the UK's advantage. Between 1986 and the present, the ratio of stock to turnover in the UK has reduced from about 15:1 to just over 10:1. The UK now holds the lowest number of weeks stock of all the major European Union countries. However, as maximum efficiency requires for just in time the integration of each stage of distribution, the system is centralised. Distribution is based on the UK motorway spine. It relies on the transit of goods to depots on the spine and redistribution to their destinations back along motorways.
That means that goods are transported substantial distances overwhelmingly by road. There is a downside. The system's profligacy with vehicle miles means that just in time will become an increasingly potent source of carbon dioxide emissions. More than 80 per cent. of UK freight goes by road, a far higher proportion than in other EU countries and a significantly higher proportion than the 60 per cent. carried by road in France and Germany.
There is a further complicating factor. As a nation, Britain trades externally to a greater extent than many of its competitors. Some 30 per cent. of goods entering the just in time system come from abroad and 95 per cent. of those arrive at UK ports.
Although goods come in a variety of forms and will require differing methods of handling at ports and subsequent distribution, a significant proportion arrive in containers and are then transported to national or regional distribution centres, mainly by road. The containers arrive at port on ships that are rapidly increasing in size rapidly. Currently, vessels transporting 6,000 to 7,000 boxes are operating and vessels able to take up to 10,000 boxes are under construction.
The draught of those ships and their port handling requirements mean that, increasingly, port facilities for containers will be concentrated in three places: Felixstowe, Thamesport and Southampton. That will inevitably add to the problems of just in time as the logistics of getting boxes to distribution centres are compounded by the need to navigate the M25, in the case of Felixstowe and Thamesport, and the A34 and M40 in the case of Southampton.
The system relies for its efficacy on specifying the arrival time as a starting point for the consideration of logistics. That works only as well as it is possible to identify reliable delivery methods. If those methods become suspect, logically, the whole system will fall down.
That is exactly what is happening in the UK; it is a little noticed side effect in the debate on road congestion. We know that car traffic is predicted to increase by one third over the next 20 years. Freight transport is predicted to expand even faster. Estimates for 20 years' time suggest that miles driven by articulated trucks will almost double.
As congestion worsens, each distribution company vies for ways to maintain its supply routes, often employing computer modelling to evade congestion delays. That produces a classic "tragedy of the commons", in that it is overwhelmingly in the interest of each company to invest in ways of avoiding congestion to keep its business afloat, but in no one's joint interest to investigate ways of reorganising the overall system so that it continues to work. Collectively, therefore, the companies involved in just in time are entering a cul-de-sac, with no logical way out. What was a competitive advantage for the UK then becomes a competitive disadvantage.
We are therefore faced with three challenges to just in time. Congestion will change it from just in time to just too late. The concentration of imports to a few ports will exacerbate that effect. To maintain the system, reliance on road transport will radically increase vehicle miles and carbon dioxide emissions.
As just in time is predicated on arrival time, transport managers will resort to planning earlier start times to distributional journeys. That will inevitably run up against the legal limits of drivers' time. The companies will then either press drivers to flout the regulations, or they will have to introduce of modern version of the old stagecoach system. That would entail stationing fresh drivers in motorway service areas or the doubling of cab crews for longer journeys. In either event, over time such measures would introduce to the system a step change in costs, cancelling out many of the cost advantages of the system's initial introduction.
As a consequence of the combined pressure of just in time and the development of container vessels, additional capacity in the three receiving ports that I mentioned is likely to be needed. At the same time, the future for the

United Kingdom's approximately 200 other commercial ports will become uncertain. Although some of them will continue to trade successfully in the import and export of bulk or specialist cargoes, many others will effectively close down and be converted to leisure uses. Already, most of the medium and smaller United Kingdom ports are under-used, and together, they represent a huge amount of long-term investment which is in danger of being lost as an element of the United Kingdom's distribution system.
As transport managers resort to avoidance stratagems to maintain the flow of goods, overall journey distances will increase. Even if they do not increase, fuel expended in traffic jams will cause the same effect. Advances in fuel efficiency, engine design and co-operation between distributors will certainly offset some of that outcome, but overall, it is unlikely that the result will be to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the transport sector, as is required under the targets in the Government's strategy on climate change. The eventual trajectory, as just in time becomes less effective, is for such emissions to be increased substantially.
At this point, the weary Minister will undoubtedly be saying to himself, "That's the problem defined, but what about the solutions?" Although we are not short of solutions, the problem is that many of them do not really help—or, if they do help, they mitigate the problem, not solve it.
We could, for example, build more roads. Simply increasing the capacity of the United Kingdom's roads to deal with maintenance of just in time would be a straightforward policy. The policy might also be accompanied by freight-only lanes on major roads, to provide greater time reliability for haulage. However, the environmental consequences of such increased road building would be devastating, and the emissions produced by the greater use of roads that would follow such a policy would make it a politically and environmentally unacceptable route to follow.
We could put more goods on to rail. Initially, that is a very attractive option, and, in the medium-term, it is a very important policy imperative. However, use of the current rail system is not favoured by hauliers, as they believe that the system is not reliable and that transit by rail would involve complex and expensive switching of modes. Certainly, the railways have dealt with the short-term problem of reliability in freight transport. Modal split remains a problem, but could be dealt with by more efficient transfer facilities. However, a structural long-term problem remains if we are considering a road-to-rail policy.
Even if all the targets of the two rail freight companies now operating were met, only about 10 per cent. of road haulage would be diverted. That would flatten out road haulage growth in the short term, but would only alleviate the long-term problem, rather than solve it. To go further than that would require fundamental change to the rail network. Although freight slots could be given priority over passenger slots, that would impinge on the Government's plans for increased passenger traffic, as slow freight trains run in front of faster passenger trains.
Alternatively, new track to accommodate freight could be built, but the environmental impact of such new infrastructure could well be as difficult to justify as a programme of new motorway construction.
We could distribute goods by sea. Such a suggestion has historically been regarded as somewhat cranky, but is now becoming increasingly realistic. Distribution by sea would rely on trans-shipment, perhaps from the hub ports that I have mentioned, such as Felixstowe and Southampton. In principle, that is eminently possible, because of the network of available receiving ports along the length of Britain's coastline and the relatively short distances inland that would be required to distribute goods to their destination.
Advances in the design of roll on/roll off and fast-goods vessels ensure that the journey times and the unpredictability of sea routing could be considerably reduced.
Environmentally, sea distribution would be the almost perfect solution, combining very low energy use per kilometre hauled and the capacity to remove a far greater percentage of road haulage than could be done by transferring to rail. Transport managers object that sea freight also suffers from modal exchange problems, is unreliable and—as distribution routes largely do not exist—is effectively unusable. Moreover, the existence of distribution centres on the motorway spine ensures that the whole distribution system would need to be reorganised.
Currently, port charges and ancillary dues mean that 60 per cent. of the costs of many short sea journeys will be taken up by payments due before the shipment leaves port. This compares very unfavourably with the ease of access to road, and the still relatively low cost of entering a truck into the haulage business. These problems are real and serious, but are all in principle resolvable.
We could deconstruct the present assumptions behind the just in time system itself. Considerable scope exists to question the structure that has developed around just in time. Are there methods of sourcing goods which do not entail such profligate movement of materials around the country? These might relate to an examination of the arrangements employed at present of hauling goods to one central point in the UK to redistribute them; changing the way in which containers come into the UK; or encouraging the adoption of more local sourcing by attaching the true costs of the travel of goods to the eventual cost to the consumer.
My preferred policy approach starts with what I hope is an important understanding—that just in time, as a method of securing efficient distribution of goods, must not be seen as the enemy. The assumptions slotted in behind just in time, which have created an almost total reliance on road distribution, are the problem. If we are to attempt to analyse the requirements of a genuinely sustainable distribution system that breaks out of the logical cul-de-sac of present practice, we need to address a simple policy question—can we retain just in time without its pitfalls?
In reality, this is a difficult target, but just in time—or something like it—is not negotiable unless we are to contemplate the dismantling of much of the pattern of food and consumer goods shopping that our society now regards as a given; and, of course, unless we contemplate adding substantial stock-holding costs to our manufacturing industries.
Policy imperatives therefore stand out. We should not look for a magic bullet, because there is none. Instead, we should look at a combination of modes—importantly, bringing the sea into full use around our coasts—which match, crucially, the mode to the transportation need. That is the opposite of the current practice of just in time.
We need to recognise that the market will not—and, logically, cannot—solve its own dilemma. Integrated Government policy initiatives which provide incentives for change, protection from short-term adverse consequences and regulatory penalties for recalcitrant distributors are necessary.
We need to develop distribution routes based on the trans-shipment of goods arriving at the main UK ports to the dozens of regional ports that can serve as new distribution centres. The technology of short sea shipping already exists in a way that can establish fast routes. The political issue is to examine the economics of port handling, so that the front-loaded costs which make short sea shipping disproportionately expensive are reduced.
We must combat the perceived unreliability of short sea routes by extending establishment and support grants to the long-term development of effective routes. We can overcome the perceived time delay on sea routes by priming just in time shuttles—that is, ensuring that a continuous conveyor belt of goods to arrive just in time is established. Ford already operates such a system between Zeebrugge and Dagenham.
Priming essentially consists of underwriting the initial day or arranging that goods will be in transit when they are switched to a slower mode. Once the shuttle is established, no further underwriting is then needed, assuming that the overall costs of the new system are equivalent to its predecessor's.
We should examine with the distribution industry the economics of breaking down the logistics of long-term trunking to national and regional distribution centres. This could consist of a variety of mutually supportive measures, such as co-operation in distribution between companies; developing source-packed containers, so that they travel as close as possible to their eventual destination before being opened and redistributed; and the encouragement, through financial incentives or penalties, of the local sourcing of goods to minimise haulage wherever possible.
This is, unashamedly, a discussion of a big issue. However, I sometimes think that the pursuit of how we get through next week often blinds us to the work that we should be doing next week to get us through the next 50 years. The problem with this subject is that no one will notice that it is a real policy problem until the system has actually broken down.
Professor Charles Handy, in his book "The Age of Unreason", cited the alleged scientific fact that the central nervous system of a frog is insufficiently developed to impel it to jump out of a saucepan of water provided it is heated gently. The gradualness of the change at no stage triggers a reaction in the frog, and it eventually boils to death. I do not know how Professor Handy knows this, and it is an experiment that I would strongly advise against trying at home. However, it serves as a metaphor for our current position.
I was encouraged by the publication of the White Paper on sustainable transport, which put forward many wise ideas. I am not sure, however, that it contains sufficient


saucepan-jumping techniques. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will address the need for such skills in his reply tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As is conventional, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on obtaining this debate on the future of just in time. Indeed, I read with interest his Adjournment debate of 23 April 1998. Some of the issues that he raised then are of relevance today.
The Government recognise the importance of a healthy distribution system. The introduction of just in time has had huge consequences for the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry and the economy of the country as a whole. The use of the just in time philosophy has led to a radical reshaping of our major manufacturing and retail industries, reducing wastage and costs and improving the quality of production. The reductions in working capital that industry has been able to achieve over the past 10 years have released nearly £30 billion of resources at manufacturing and retail levels for productive investment. That has helped to maintain our competitiveness in a challenging global market place.
Furthermore, the UK is rightly recognised as a world beater in efficient supply chain management—of which just in time forms the philosophical basis. We can boast that logistics as a proportion of gross domestic product in the UK is the second lowest in the world at 10.62 per cent., beaten only by the United States at 10.49 per cent. Europe averages 11.79 per cent., and the global average is 11.74 per cent. The Government are committed to maintaining the UK's position at the competitive edge.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that we need a distribution system that is sustainable and that will serve our economy in the decades to come. That is why we stated in our freight policy paper "Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy":
We need an integrated transport infrastructure in which road, rail, inland waterways, coastal shipping, ports and airports all play their part in delivering the goods.
This is a multi-pronged strategy, which makes better use of our roads as well as our rail and water networks. Clearly, the freight transport industry has a strong role to play in improving the efficiency of its services and developing the new logistics and supply chain opportunities that keep British business on track.
The Government recognise that short sea shipping is a generally safe, environmentally friendly and sustainable mode of transport. We actively support its further development. The shipping sector can make an important contribution, either in its own right or as part of an intermodal system, to the economy of this country. As set out in our shipping policy paper, "British Shipping: Charting a New Course", the Government want to encourage short sea shipping and are keen for the industry to look at ways in which shipping might overcome some of its disadvantages. Measures might include logistical and technical innovation, research and development programmes to investigate the potential contribution of new shipping designs and technologies, better intermodal freight connections and innovation in equipment and design to reduce handling.
With the development and deployment of faster ships, there is the increasing potential for short sea shipping to be able to meet the just in time requirements of modern industry and to break into new markets. It can reach some outlying parts of the European Community that other transport modes cannot reach. At the same time, we recognise that better marketing and promotion of short sea shipping and better communication between the various service providers could encourage more shippers and forwarding agents to consider sea freight as a real option. The Government will liaise with the industry regarding possible initiatives to encourage the short sea and coastal shipping sectors that help us to meet our environment and transport goals.
The use of just in time shuttles is an interesting idea. I note that Ford already operates such a system, and clearly finds it a viable option. However, it would be for industry itself to establish whether, given the time constraints associated with road congestion and the consequential costs associated with that, the continuous conveyor belt of goods that can be achieved by short sea shipping would be a better option.
The Government are committed to extending the freight facilities grant scheme to include coastal and short sea shipping to encourage the transfer of freight from roads to this more environmentally friendly mode of transport. We will be consulting on the details, including the costs that would be eligible for grant, and the criteria to be used in assessing applications.
The United Kingdom will also continue to be involved in European initiatives to support short sea shipping. We warmly welcomed the European Commission's second progress report on this subject, and were pleased to support the adoption of the Transport Council resolution on the promotion of this mode of shipping last month. A number of the recommendations in the report are already in place in the United Kingdom. We are examining the others to determine whether they can be taken forward by Government initiative. Some are clearly for industry action, but we will be keeping in close touch with the shipping industry to discuss the Government's role in creating a climate favourable to the development of short sea shipping.
The efficiency of our ports is vital to our industry and our distribution networks, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Increases in port traffic bring pressures on ports themselves, and on the road and rail links to ports as part of wider transport networks. Ports are distribution centres not only for primary products moved in bulk, but increasingly for higher value manufactured goods moved in boxed cargoes—both deep sea container traffic and ro-ro trailers and containers on shorter sea routes. Increases in ship sizes and the growth in boxed cargoes are increasingly associated with gateway ports, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Ports must play their full part in taking active measures to improve the efficiency of operating berths and moving cargoes to customers, eliminating hold-ups and improving delivery times and reliability. The Government will also play their part, as we said in our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". We aim to encourage provision of multimodal access to markets, make best use of existing port infrastructure and promote best environmental standards in the design and operation of ports. We are also aiming to address the issues raised by changes in trading patterns and their effects on


demands for port capacity. We recognise that some ports may need to increase capacity to meet future demand. We aim to say more about our strategic approach in this area in a ports policy paper on which we are currently working.
As my hon. Friend has said in the House before, congestion threatens our economy. Even if we were to divert freight via coastal shipping to its nearest port, roads would still be needed to transfer the goods to and between our factories and shops. That is why a competitive, thriving road transport sector will still form a linchpin in our economy; that is why this Government will be spending £1.4 billion over the next seven years on major trunk road schemes; and that is why we increased spending on roads maintenance by 10 per cent. this year. That compares with the record of the previous Government who cut spending by 9 per cent. over a four-year period.
We are also improving choice for the commuter. The Transport Bill will enable local authorities outside London to introduce road user charging which can help to tackle the problems of traffic congestion that cost the economy billions of pounds every year. Then there is the £750 million that we have allocated to local authorities so that they can put their local transport plans into action. That is all part of a £2.4 billion cash injection for local transport over three years. But that is not all: on 13 December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched his 10-year investment plan to transform Britain's transport systems, and which will tackle congestion on our roads, improve journey times and make life easier for British industry.
Through our promotion of the use of key performance indicators, we have been able to demonstrate the importance of transport provider-customer relations in reducing delivery delays and improving efficiency. However, there is much room for improvement, especially in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from freight distribution. That is why the Government are working with industry to improve the efficiency of distribution and to reduce its energy consumption. Through the energy efficiency best practice programme, we have been promoting best practice in road haulage and logistics. The new sub-group of the Road Haulage Forum, established by my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, will tackle the environmental and business challenges associated with improving business performance.
Industry has not been a complacent partner in these matters. I offer the House some examples of best practice, where efficient supply chain management has reduced transport demand, while retaining the basic philosophy of just in time. Tesco has integrated its primary and secondary distribution activities. By sharing both types of activities with its suppliers, the company has been able to reduce empty running and, more important, the total mileage of the vehicle fleet. Together with new packaging technologies, those measures have combined to improve the efficiency of vehicle utilisation, saving about 3 million miles per year—equating to 4,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
Excel Logistics, a third-party logistics provider, operates a consolidated just-in-time supplier collection system for Rover Group. Vehicles are shared by the factory and the suppliers, visiting each supplier in turn, before returning to the factory to de-stuff and then repeat the cycle. That has resulted in a saving of 3.9 million miles—equivalent to 5,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
The automotive industry is recognised as being at the forefront of just in time in the UK; we are seeing the development of supplier parks, whereby suppliers of volume components are encouraged to set up manufacturing operations on sites that are literally next door to the assembly plant. That is resulting in huge savings in transport costs and has removed any concerns regarding road congestion on the timing of deliveries.
By these examples, I hope that I have been able to show my hon. Friend that just in time does not mean a profligacy of vehicle miles. Companies that have adopted that approach consider transport as part of the whole supply chain and do their best to ensure that that part of the chain operates as efficiently as possible—maximising vehicle utilisation and minimising vehicle mileage.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we are committed to ensuring that we do not lose the competitive edge that we have gained through the use of just in time. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, good transport is key to our economic ambitions. With our new transport package delivering the policies for an integrated transport system, as set out in our transport White Paper, we intend to develop the framework within which British businesses can thrive.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.